G.R. No. 175279-80 - Lim-Lua vs. Lua

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175279-80)

Applicable Law

• Family Code of the Philippines, Arts. 194, 201–203 (support definitions and rules)
• Rule on Provisional Orders (A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC)
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15, Section 4 (notice requirement)

Nullity Action and Support Claim

Petitioner filed on September 3, 2003 a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and prayed for support pendente lite of ₱500,000.00 per month for herself and two children, alleging respondent’s substantial earnings.

RTC Order Granting Support Pendente Lite

On March 31, 2004, the RTC granted:
• Retroactive support (Sep 2003–Mar 2004): ₱250,000.00 × 7 months = ₱1,750,000.00
• Monthly support starting April 2004: ₱250,000.00
• Additional ₱135,000.00 for medical attendance upon operation

Motion for Reconsideration and Contempt Warning

Respondent’s first motion for reconsideration argued petitioner’s living arrangements negated spousal support and the amounts granted were unconscionable. The RTC denied it for lack of notice, treated the motion as a “scrap of paper,” and gave respondent ten days to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

CA’s Reduction of Support

On April 12, 2005, the CA found grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s ₱250,000.00 award, reduced monthly support to ₱115,000.00 (effective April 2005) and adjusted arrears accordingly; neither party appealed.

Compliance, Execution Writ, and Further Motions

Respondent tendered a check reflecting deductions of ₱2,482,348.16 (advances for car purchases and related expenses). Petitioner sought a writ of execution; the RTC on September 27, 2005 issued it, rejecting respondent’s deductions. A motion for reconsideration and inhibition was denied on November 25, 2005.

Consolidation in the CA and Its Decision

Petitioner then filed a contempt petition (CA–G.R. SP No. 01154); respondent filed certiorari (CA–G.R. SP No. 01315). On April 20, 2006, the CA:
a) Dismissed contempt for lack of merit
b) Granted certiorari, set aside RTC orders, ordered deduction of ₱3,428,813.80 from arrears, and directed resumption of ₱115,000.00 monthly support

Issues on Review

Whether respondent’s suspension of support and deductions constituted indirect contempt
Whether all claimed advances should be deducted from accrued support arrears

Nature and Scope of Support Pendente Lite

Under Art. 194, support includes essentials—sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical, education, transportation—aligned with family capacity. Provisional support need only be established by affidavits or documentary evidence without full merits review.

Intended Use of the ₱115,000.00 Monthly Support

The CA-fixed ₱115,000.00 per month was meant primarily for food, household staff salaries, therapy sessions, vitamins, and other basic necessities of petitioner and her children.

Respondent’s Deductions and Equitable Considerations

Respondent argued that disallowing his advances—especially costly cars and their upkeep—would result in unjust enrichment. He maintained that groceries, dry goods, car maintenance, school fees, travel, medical, dental and other expenses benefited petitioner and the children equally.

Precedents on Crediting Voluntary Payments

Philippine and U.S. jurisprudence hold that voluntary payments or gifts made directly to children without the custodian’s consent are generally not credited against court-ordered support. Equitable offsets may be allowed only to the extent they correspond to the support awarded.

Disallowed Versus Allowed Deductions

Only those advances that directly correspond to support pendente lite—medical, dental, and groceries/dry goods—are deductible. The Supreme Court disallowed credits for car purchases, maintenance, non-essential credit card items, travel, salon, school fees and cash gifts, and allowed only:
• Medical expenses of Susan