Case Summary (G.R. No. 43794)
Procedural Posture
Petitioner filed an original petition for the writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the trial court’s May 2, 1935 order that commanded petitioner to pay the infant plaintiff P30 per month pendente lite. The trial judge denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of that order, prompting the present special proceeding.
Material Facts
A minor, through his mother and guardian ad litem, sued petitioner for support, alleging the minor was the petitioner’s acknowledged son. Petitioner answered with a general denial and a special defense denying acknowledgment and asserting he could not have acknowledged the child (contending absence from the baptism and that he was married when the child was allegedly born). Despite this denial of paternity, the trial judge ordered payment of P30 monthly pending litigation. Respondents asserted before this Court that the defendant’s counsel had agreed to the monthly pension to secure a transfer of the trial date; petitioner’s counsel vehemently denied any such agreement. Affidavits from the respondent judge and deputy clerks supported respondents’ version; petitioner’s counsel filed a sworn denial.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to order pendente lite support when the plaintiff’s civil status as the defendant’s son — the very foundation of any right to support under the Civil Code — had been put in issue by the defendant’s pleadings.
Governing Legal Principles and Precedent
- Article 143 of the Civil Code (as cited) enumerates relationships that give rise to mutual obligations of support (husband and wife; legitimate ascendants and descendants; parents and acknowledged natural children and their legitimate descendants; parents and illegitimate children lacking natural-child status; brothers and sisters). The right to support is derived from the civil status or juridical relationship thus recognized by law.
- Yangco v. Rohde (1 Phil., 404) is treated as controlling precedent: when the civil status that gives rise to a support claim (e.g., marriage for alimony or parentage for child support) is in issue and denied, the court should not treat that status as established for purposes of awarding pendente lite support; an allegation in issue cannot be equated with an established right.
- It is a basic jurisdictional principle that parties cannot, by agreement or consent, confer subject-matter jurisdiction on a court when the law excludes jurisdiction over the subject matter; where there is want of jurisdiction of the subject matter, a judgment is void and consent cannot validate it.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the minor’s right to support depends on the existence of the civil status of sonship. Because petitioner denied that status in his pleadings, the status was legitimately controverted and thus not established for purposes of granting support pendente lite. Applying the Yangco precedent, the Court held that when civil status is in litigation, nothing may be assumed and no law permits the court to treat the claimant as entitled to provisional support in the same way as one who has already conclusively established the requisite status by legal proof or final judgment. The Court further held that even if the defendant’s attorney had purportedly consented to the pension, such consent could not confer jurisdiction on the trial court to adjudicate a matter it had no power to decide; consent of parties cannot supply a jurisdictional defect.
Holding
The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and declared the trial court’s May 2, 1935 order requiring petitioner to pay P30 monthly as support pendente lite null and void. No costs were imposed.
Concurrence and Dissent
Justice Vickers concurred in the result but dissented from the Yangco rule insofar as it precludes a court from granting pendente lite support whenever the defendant pleads denial of the qualifying civil status; he expressed the view that if the plaintiff presents conclusive evidence at the hearing, pendente lite relief
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 43794)
Citation, Court, and Date
- Reported at 61 Phil. 752, G.R. No. L-43794.
- Decided August 9, 1935.
- Opinion delivered by Justice Goddard.
Parties and Representation
- Petitioner: Luis Francisco.
- Respondents: Francisco Zandueta, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila; and Eugenio Leopoldo Francisco, a two-year-old minor, represented by his natural mother and guardian ad litem, Rosario Gomez.
- The minor plaintiff appears in the underlying suit through his natural mother and curator ad litem, Rosario Gomez.
- The petition in this Court was filed by or on behalf of petitioner Luis Francisco seeking certiorari to annul an order of the respondent judge.
Nature of the Proceeding
- This is an original petition for the writ of certiorari addressed to this Court to abrogate an order of the respondent judge dated May 2, 1935.
- The order below granted the minor respondent a monthly pension of P30 pendente lite in Case No. 47238, Court of First Instance of the City of Manila.
- The petition challenges the jurisdictional validity of that order.
Underlying Case No. 47238 — Allegations and Pleadings
- The minor plaintiff (Eugenio Leopoldo Francisco), through his guardian ad litem, instituted an action for support against Luis Francisco in CFI Manila, Case No. 47238.
- Complaint allegation: the plaintiff is the acknowledged son of Luis Francisco and therefore entitled to support.
- Petitioner’s answer: a general denial of every material allegation in the complaint.
- Petitioner’s special defenses: he never acknowledged the plaintiff as his son; he was not present at the plaintiff’s baptism; and he was married at the time the plaintiff is alleged to have been born.
Order Challenged and Subsequent Procedural Acts
- Despite the denial of paternity, the respondent judge issued an order dated May 2, 1935, granting P30 per month to the minor pendente lite.
- On May 11, 1935, petitioner moved for reconsideration on grounds of excess of jurisdiction, contending:
- The civil status (sonship) of the plaintiff was in issue by the pleadings.
- The plaintiff has no right to monthly support until his status as the defendant’s child is finally determined in his favor.
- The guardian ad litem admits lack of means to defray ordinary expenses, creating an impossibility for the defendant to recover any support advanced pendente lite should paternity be ultimately denied.
- The respondent judge denied the motion for reconsideration; petitioner then instituted the present special proceeding.
Respondents’ Answer to the Petition; Factual Assertions
- Respondents allege in their joint answer:
- Case No. 47238 was set for trial on April 29, 1935.
- The defendant’s attorney filed a motion on April 22, 1935, to transfer the trial; the hearing on that motion was set for April 27, 1935.
- On April 27, 1935 (the day of the hearing on the transfer motion), the attorney for the minor filed a motion for support pendente lite of P30 per month.
- The guardian ad litem opposed the proposed transfer.
- After discussion, the defendant’s attorney agreed that his client would pay the minor P30 per month during the pendency of the case in order to secure the transfer.
- The respondents’ answer is supported by affidavits of the respondent judge and two deputy clerks of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
- Petitioner’s reply under oath, made by his attorney in Case No. 47238 and in this proceeding, alleges that the statements as to the defendant’s attorney agreeing to pay P30 monthly are absolutely false.
Evidentiary Dispute in This Court
- The parties dispute whether the defendant’s attorney actually agreed to the P30 monthly pension as an inducement to transfer the trial.
- The Court states it is not necessary to resolve that specific factual dispute to reach a proper solution of the certiorari petition.