Title
Lerma vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-33352
Decision Date
Dec 20, 1974
A 1971 case where a husband contested support pendente lite for his wife, convicted of adultery, during legal separation proceedings; Supreme Court ruled adultery bars such support.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-33352)

Legal Background and Procedural Posture

On November 18, 1969, Diaz instituted a legal separation action in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City, seeking custody of their children and support pendente lite, which was granted by Judge Leonor Ines Luciano. This order provided temporary financial support to Diaz and their youngest son but was contested by Lerma on grounds of alleged grave abuse of discretion by the court.

Initial Rulings and Appeals

After initially appealing the lower court's orders to the Court of Appeals, Lerma's petition was granted, and the orders were set aside, allowing him to present further evidence. However, upon Diaz's motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed Lerma’s petition, prompting Lerma to seek further review. In parts relevant to the ongoing dispute, the Court issued temporary restraining orders to prevent enforcement of the lower court’s orders while the appeal was pending.

Arguments Presented

Lerma contended that the lower court failed to adequately assess the facts surrounding the monetary support ruling, particularly his defenses regarding allegations of adultery. He cited the procedural necessity under Section 5 of Rule 61 of the Revised Rules of Court, which stipulates that a court must consider the merits of the case before granting support.

Adultery as a Defense for Support

A pivotal legal issue concerned whether Diaz's adultery could exempt her from receiving support pendente lite. Past jurisprudence, including rulings in cases like Quintana vs. Lerma and Sanchez vs. Zulueta, established that adultery may serve as a valid defense against support claims. The Court found that Article 292 of the Civil Code, which mandates support from conjugal partnership property during legal separation proceedings, does not negate the principle that a guilty spouse cannot demand support in the absence of justifiable grounds for separation.

Decision Rationale

The Supreme Court ruled that while support pendente lite is conceptually rooted in mandatory provisions during separation proceedings, the right to such support presupposes a prima

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.