Case Summary (G.R. No. 45616)
Civil Case and Allegations for Support
In civil case No. 3199, the plaintiffs sought an order requiring the defendant to pay them a monthly allowance for support. The complaint alleged that, since 1932, the defendant refused and continued to refuse support. It further alleged that the plaintiffs had no means of subsistence, and that the defendant abandoned them without justifiable cause. It also asserted that the defendant refused to permit them to live with him.
Defendant’s Special Defense
The defendant answered with a special defense grounded on the alleged conduct of the wife. He alleged that Josefa Diego abandoned the conjugal home on October 27, 1930, without his knowledge or consent, because she committed adultery with Macario Sanchez. He alleged that, as a result of those illicit relations, a child was born—Mario Sanchez—who was pleaded to be the product of the adultery.
Application for Allowance Pendente Lite and Court’s Order
A month after the filing of the complaint, the plaintiffs requested the court to compel the defendant to provide an allowance pendente lite in the amount of P 50 a month. In opposition, the defendant argued that Mario Sanchez was not his legitimate child but was the adulterous child of Josefa Diego and Macario Sanchez. He also requested the opportunity to adduce evidence to support his opposition.
The court acted favorably on the plaintiffs’ application and ordered the defendant to pay a monthly allowance pendente lite of P 50 to the plaintiffs from July 1, 1936, without acceding to the defendant’s request to present evidence.
Petition for Prohibition and the Issue Raised
After the adverse order, the defendant filed a petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals against the trial judge of the Court of First Instance and against the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals denied the petition. The defendant then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court on certiorari.
The controlling issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s refusal to allow the defendant to present evidence in support of his opposition to the application for allowance pendente lite.
Governing Rule on Adultery as a Defense
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in not allowing the defendant to present evidence for the purpose of determining whether it was sufficient prima facie to overcome the application. The Court reaffirmed the doctrine that adultery on the part of the wife is a valid defense against an action for support, citing Quintana vs. Lerma, 24 Phil, 285. It further ruled that, as to the child, the defense extends to the claim that the child is the fruit of such adulterous relations, because in that situation the child would not be the defendant’s and would not be entitled to support as his child.
Need for Proof and the Error of Denying Evidence
The Supreme Court explained that the defense could not remain a mere allegation. It had to be established by proof. The Court clarified that it was “not of course necessary to go fully into the merits of the case,” because the matter involved only a provisional resolution. The trial court’s task in the allowance pendente lite application was to ascertain the kind and amount of evidence it might deem sufficient to enable it to resolve the application justly, one way or the other, bearing in mind the merely provisional nature of the order to be issued.
Although the Court acknowledged that “mere affidavits may satisfy the court” for purposes of passing upon the application, it held that the defendant’s failure to accompany the opposition with affidavits did not justify ignoring the opposition solely for that reason. The defendant had asked for an opportunity to present evidence, and the denial of that opportunity was held to be erroneous.
The Court also recognized that the defendant might have been unable to obtain affidavits in support of his opposition. Still, it was possible that he had other evidence of greater weight ready for presentation. Thus, if the defendant claimed a valid defense requiring proof and requested an opportunity to present evidence, the trial court could not properly refuse him that opportunity.
Disposition of the Petition and Consequences
The Supreme Cou
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 45616)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Feliciano Sanchez filed and prosecuted a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, after the Court of Appeals denied his petition for prohibition.
- Josefa Diego and Mario Sanchez, represented by his mother Josefa Diego as guardian ad litem, were plaintiffs in a civil case No. 3199 for support in the Court of First Instance of Cavite.
- Feliciano Sanchez was the defendant in the support case, and he also appeared as the petitioner in the prohibition proceedings and as the petitioner-appellant in this review.
- The Court of Appeals denied the petition for prohibition, and the issue on review centered on whether the trial court committed reversible error in handling the application for allowance pendente lite.
- The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals’ resolution, and ordered corrective action by the trial court.
Key Factual Allegations
- Josefa Diego and Mario Sanchez alleged that Feliciano Sanchez, as their husband and father respectively, had refused and continued to refuse to support them since 1932.
- The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs had no means of subsistence while Feliciano Sanchez received a monthly pension of P 174.20 from the United States Army.
- The plaintiffs alleged that Feliciano Sanchez abandoned them without justifiable cause and refused to allow them to live with him.
- Feliciano Sanchez raised a special defense that Josefa Diego abandoned the conjugal home on October 27, 1930, without his knowledge or consent, due to her alleged adultery with Macario Sanchez.
- Feliciano Sanchez further alleged that Mario Sanchez was the child resulting from that alleged adultery and therefore was not his legitimate child.
Support Claim and Allowance Pendente Lite
- After the filing of the complaint, the plaintiffs requested the trial court to compel Feliciano Sanchez to provide allowance pendente lite of P 50 per month.
- In opposition, Feliciano Sanchez argued that Mario Sanchez was not his legitimate child because he was allegedly the adulterous child of Josefa Diego with Macario Sanchez.
- Feliciano Sanchez asked for an opportunity to adduce evidence to support the special defense.
- The trial court did not accede to the defendant’s request to present evidence and instead ordered Feliciano Sanchez to pay P 50 monthly as allowance pendente lite, from July 1, 1936.
Prohibition and Certiorari
- In view of the trial court’s refusal to admit evidence in opposition, Feliciano Sanchez filed a petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals against the trial judge and the plaintiffs.
- The Court of Appeals denied the petition for prohibition.
- Feliciano Sanchez then came to the Supreme Court on certiorari, challenging the trial judge’s approach to the allowance pendente lite application.
Statutory and Doctrinal Framework
- The Supreme Court treated adultery on the part of the wife as a valid defense against an action for support, citing Quintana vs. Lerma, 24 Phil, 285.
- The Supreme Court extended that logic to the child aspect, holding that if the child were the fruit of adulterous relations, the child would not be the defendant’s child and would not be entitled to support as such.
- The Court emphasized that