G.R. No. 185595 - Calderon vs. Roxas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 185595)

Factual Background

Ma. Carminia C. Calderon and Jose Antonio F. Roxas were married on December 4, 1985 and had four children. Petitioner filed an Amended Complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage on January 16, 1998, invoking Art. 36 of the Family Code for psychological incapacity. While the main action was pending, the RTC granted an application for support pendente lite and, by Order dated May 19, 1998, directed the respondent to contribute P42,292.50 per month toward the children’s support, together with an allocation for school fees and supplies.

Prior Proceedings on Support and Contempt

The trial court’s initial orders for support pendente lite, and related proceedings, became the subject of a separate Supreme Court ruling in Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139337 decided August 15, 2001, which held that the refiled proceedings and the support orders were not void for omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping. Thereafter the RTC resumed the main case and, by order of October 11, 2002, again directed support consistent with the earlier ruling.

Subsequent Motions and RTC Rulings

In February 2003, Jose Antonio F. Roxas moved to reduce the monthly support, asserting that the P42,292.50 fixed by the court exceeded his salary as a city councilor. Petitioner moved to increase support and sought spousal support and arrears. After hearings, the RTC issued an Order dated March 7, 2005 granting the motion to reduce support and denying petitioner’s motions for spousal support, increase of child support pendente lite, and support-in-arrears. The RTC denied petitioner’s partial motion for reconsideration on May 4, 2005.

RTC Decision in the Main Case

On May 16, 2005 the RTC rendered its Decision in Civil Case No. 97-0608, declaring the parties’ marriage null and void, awarding custody of three minor children to petitioner, ordering respondent to provide child support in the amount of P30,000.00 per month and to support the children’s schooling and related expenses, and directing dissolution and settlement of conjugal property.

Petitioner's Appeal and the Court of Appeals Ruling

Petitioner appealed only the RTC Orders dated March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005. By Decision dated September 9, 2008 the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appealed interlocutory orders could not be entertained because the RTC Decision of May 16, 2005 had become final and executory and because petitioner had resorted to the wrong remedy to question interlocutory orders. The CA denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated December 15, 2008.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner raised two issues: whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion or reversible error in ruling that the RTC Orders of March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005 were merely interlocutory; and whether the CA erred in dismissing the appeal outright instead of deciding it on the merits.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner argued that the interlocutory character of the assailed orders applied only to the motion to reduce support, whereas the rulings on support-in-arrears and the enforcement of the earlier May 19, 1998 Order had become final once the amounts became due and demandable. Petitioner contended that orders under Sections 1 and 4 of Rule 61 could be appealable prospectively and that the accumulated arrearages converted the provisional orders into final ones amenable to ordinary appeal.

Respondent and Lower Courts’ Position

The RTC and the CA treated the orders on support pendente lite as provisional and interlocutory because they were issued during the pendency of the main action for declaration of nullity of marriage and were ancillary to that main action. The CA emphasized that interlocutory orders may not be appealed and that the proper remedy for a purportedly erroneous interlocutory order is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 when the order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the Decision dated September 9, 2008 and the Resolution dated December 15, 2008 of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the assailed RTC orders on support pendente lite and support-in-arrears were interlocutory in nature and therefore not appealable as a matter of right. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CA’s dismissal of the appeal for lack of the proper remedy.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the settled distinction between interlocutory and final orders: a final order finally disposes of a case or a particular matter, leaving nothing more for the court to do, while an interlocutory order resolves incidental matters and leaves more to be done on the merits. The Court emphasized that the interlocutory nature of an order does not depend on compliance or noncompliance with its directives, but on whether the court’s task of adjudicating the controversy remains incomplete. The Court noted that provisional remedies are temporary and ancillary to the main action and that orders for support pendente lite are issued during the pendency of the principal case and remain provisional. The Court observed that the respondent’s compliance efforts, the subsequent motions to reduce and increase support, and the RTC’s later contempt proceedings to enforce its orders all underscored the provisional character of the support orders. The Court cit

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 185595)

Parties and Posture

Ma. Carminia C. Calderon represented by Marycris V. Baldevia, petitioner, sought relief from orders of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals in a marriage nullity action and ancillary support proceedings.
Jose Antonio F. Roxas, private respondent, was the defendant in the annulment action and the subject of orders granting and later modifying support pendente lite.
Court of Appeals was respondent insofar as it rendered the Decision dated September 9, 2008 and Resolution dated December 15, 2008 that are reviewed in this petition.
The petition for review invoked Rule 45 and challenged the CA's dismissal of an appeal taken from RTC orders dated March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005 while the main case was pending.
The case bears G.R. No. 185595 and the decision under review was promulgated by the Supreme Court on January 9, 2013.

Key Facts

Petitioner and private respondent were married on December 4, 1985 and had four children.
Petitioner filed an amended complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage on January 16, 1998 on the ground of psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
The RTC issued an order on May 19, 1998 granting support pendente lite in the amount of P42,292.50 per month and providing for payment of school-related expenses.
The support pendente lite orders and related proceedings were earlier the subject of Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139337, where this Court reinstated the RTC's provisional support orders after resolving a non-forum-shopping defect.
Private respondent later filed a motion to reduce support on February 11, 2003, and petitioner moved to increase support and to recover alleged support-in-arrears.

Procedural History

The RTC directed compliance with the May 19, 1998 Order and later issued an order on October 11, 2002 directing support payments beginning April 1, 1999.
After hearings, the RTC granted private respondent's motion to reduce support and denied petitioner's motions on March 7, 2005, and denied petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration on May 4, 2005.
The RTC rendered its final decision in the annulment case on May 16, 2005, declaring the marriage null and ordering child custody, monthly child support fixed at P30,000, dissolution of conjugal partnership, and other relief.
Petitioner appealed only the RTC orders dated March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005 to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal on September 9, 2008 on the ground that the appealed interlocutory orders could not be separately