Title
Calderon vs. Roxas
Case
G.R. No. 185595
Decision Date
Jan 9, 2013
Marriage annulled; support pendente lite reduced to P30,000 monthly. Orders deemed interlocutory, not appealable; proper remedy is Rule 65.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 185595)

Procedural Background

  1. January 16, 1998: Petitioner filed an amended complaint for annulment of marriage on grounds of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
  2. May 19, 1998: RTC granted support pendente lite, ordering respondent to pay ₱42,292.50 monthly plus 50% tuition and related school expenses.
  3. August 15, 2001: Supreme Court in G.R. No. 139337 held that RTC’s support orders were valid despite a non-forum-shopping certificate defect, reinstating RTC proceedings.
  4. October 11, 2002: RTC reiterated the ₱42,292.50 monthly support retroactive to April 1, 1999.
  5. February 11, 2003: Respondent moved to reduce support, citing income lower than the ordered support.
  6. March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005: RTC granted the motion to reduce support, denied spousal support and increase of child support, and refused to rule on arrearages.
  7. May 16, 2005: RTC rendered a final decision annulling the marriage, awarding child custody to petitioner, and ordering ₱30,000 monthly child support.
  8. June 14, 2005: Petitioner appealed only the March 7 and May 4, 2005 interlocutory orders.
  9. September 9, 2008: CA dismissed the appeal for lack of appealability of interlocutory orders.
  10. January 9, 2013: Supreme Court denied the petition for review.

Key Dates

• Marriage: December 4, 1985
• Amended Complaint Filed: January 16, 1998
• Initial Support Order: May 19, 1998
• RTC Interlocutory Orders: March 7 & May 4, 2005
• RTC Final Decision: May 16, 2005
• CA Decision: September 9, 2008
• Supreme Court Decision: January 9, 2013

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Family Code of the Philippines, Art. 36 (psychological incapacity)
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41, Section 1 (appealability), Rule 61 (support pendente lite)
• A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC (Rule on Provisional Orders in annulment cases, effective March 15, 2003)

Issue

Whether the March 7 and May 4, 2005 RTC orders on support pendente lite and arrearages are mere interlocutory orders not appealable as of right, thus barring petitioner’s appeal.

Interlocutory vs. Final Orders

A final order fully disposes of a case or adjudicates parties’ rights and liabilities, leaving nothing for further judicial action except appeal or execution. An interlocutory order resolves incidental or provisional matters during the pendency of the main action and does not terminate the court’s adjudicative function. Support pendente lite orders, being provisional measures ancillary to the annulment action, do not finally determine the controversy.

Provisional Remedies and Rule on Provisional Orders

Support pendente lite is a provisional remedy available during the pendency of annulment proceedings to preserve the children’s welfare. The Rule on Provisional Orders (A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC) expressly includes spousal and child support among measures governed b

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.