G.R. No.

127578 February 15, 1999 The raison d'  etre  behind the proscription against renunciation,
MANUEL DE ASIS vs COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JAIME T. HAMOY, transmission and/or compromise of the right to support is stated, thus:
Branch 130, RTC, Kalookan City and GLEN CAMIL ANDRES DE ASIS The right to support being founded upon the need of the recipient to
represented by her mother/guardian VIRCEL D. ANDRES maintain his existence, he is not entitled to renounce or transfer the right
for this would mean sanctioning the voluntary giving up of life itself. The
Facts: right to life cannot be renounce; hence, support which is the means to
attain the former, cannot be renounced.
On October 14, 1988, Vircel D. Andres, (the herein private respondent) in It is true that in order to claim support, filiation and/or paternity must first be
her capacity as the legal guardian of the minor, Glen Camil Andres de shown between the claimant and the parent. However, paternity and
Asis, brought an action for maintenance and support against Manuel de filiation or the lack of the same is a relationship that must be judicially
Asis, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-88-935 before the Regional Trial Court established and it is for the court to declare its existence or absence. It
of Quezon City, Branch 94, alleging that the defendant Manuel de Asis cannot be left to the will or agreement of the parties.
(the petitioner here) is the father of subject minor Glen Camil Andres de The civil status of a son having been denied, and this civil status, from
Asis, and the former refused and/or failed to provide for the maintenance which the right to support is derived being in issue, it is apparent that no
of the latter, despite repeated demands. effect can be .given to such a claim until an authoritative declaration has
been made as to the existence of the cause. 6
Respondent alleges that he is not the father of the minor child. Upon the Although in the case under scrutiny, the admission may be binding upon
agreement between the parties, the initial complaint was dismissed. the respondent, such an admission is at most evidentiary and does not
However, another Complaint for maintenance and support was brought conclusively establish the lack of filiation.
against Manuel A. de Asis, this time in the name of Glen Camil Andres de Neither are we persuaded by petitioner's theory that the dismissal with
Asis, represented by her legal guardian/mother, Vircel D. Andres. This was prejudice of Civil Case Q-88-935 has the effect of res judicata on the
filed with the RTC of Kalookan. Manuel moved to dismiss the Complaint on subsequent case for support. The case of Advincula vs. Advincula  7 comes
the ground of res judicata, alleging that Civil Case C-16107 is barred by to the fore. In Advincula, the minor, Manuela Advincula, instituted a case
the prior judgment which dismissed with prejudice Civil Case Q -88-935. for acknowledgment and support against her putative father, Manuel
In the Order dated November 25, 1993 denying subject motion to dismiss, Advincula. On motion of both parties and for the reason that the  "plaintiff
the trial court ruled that res judicata is inapplicable in an action for support has lost interest and is no longer interested in continuing the case against
for the reason that renunciation or waiver of future support is prohibited by the defendant and has no further evidence to introduce in support of the
law. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the said Order met the same complaint", the case was dismissed. Thereafter, a similar case was
fate. It was likewise denied. Manuel filed an appeal with the CA but it the instituted by Manuela, which the defendant moved to dismiss, theorizing
CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Thus, this petition to the SC. that the dismissal of the first case precluded the filing of the second case.
In disposing such case, this Court ruled, thus:
Issue: The new Civil Code provides that the allowance for support is provisional
Whether or not the public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion because the amount may be increased or decreased depending upon the
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in upholding the denial of the means of the giver and the needs of the recipient (Art. 297); and that the
motion to dismiss by the trial court, and holding that an action for support right to receive support cannot be renounced nor can it be transmitted to a
cannot be barred by res judicata. third person neither can it be compensated with what the recipient owes
the obligator (Art .301). Furthermore, the right to support can not be
Held: waived or transferred to third parties and future support cannot be the
subject of compromise (Art. 2035; Coral v. Gallego, 38 O.G. 3135, cited in

1
IV Civil Code by Padilla, p. 648; 1956 Ed.). This being true, it is statement of Teresita was taken by SPO1 Isagani L. Ico. Police Chief
indisputable that the present action for support can be brought, Inspector Wendy G. Rosario later endorsed the complaining witness to the
notwithstanding the fact the previous case filed against the same Office of the City Prosecutor of Dagupan City for appropriate legal action.
defendant was dismissed. And it also appearing that the dismissal of Civil Thereafter, with the assistance of her mother, Teresita filed a criminal
Case No. 3553, was not an adjudication upon the merits, as heretofore complaint accusing Manuel Manahan alias  Maning of rape. Meanwhile, on
shown, the right of herein plaintiff-appellant to reiterate her suit for support 2 October 1995, she gave birth to a healthy baby girl and christened her
and acknowledgment is available, as her needs arise. Once the needs of Melanie Tibigar. Manuel’s story is different stating that they were lovers
plaintiff arise, she has the right to bring an action for support, for it is only and they had several sexual encounter already. Meanwhile, on 2 October
then that her cause for action is accrues.. . . 1995, she gave birth to a healthy baby girl and christened her Melanie
Tibigar. Apart from the rape case Teresita also filed for support for the
GR 128157 child.
People vs Manahan
Issue:
Facts: WON the filing of acknowledgement and support is proper as to this case?
Complainant Teresita Tibigar, 16 years old, worked at the Espiritu Canteen
in Dagupan City. As a stay-in waitress she slept at the second floor of the Held:
canteen. Manuel Manahan is the brother-in-law of Josefina Espiritu, owner On the matter of acknowledgment and support of the child, a correction of
of the canteen. His wife Primadonna is the sister of Josefina Espiritu. the view of the court a quo  is in order. Article 345 of The Revised Penal
Manuel and Primadonna temporarily reside at the canteen together with Code provides that persons guilty of rape shall also be sentenced to
the family of Josefina as Primadonna was then pregnant. On 5 January "acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from doing
1995, at about two o'clock in the morning, Teresita who was asleep was so," and "in every case to support the offspring." In the case before us,
suddenly awakened when she felt someone beside her. Upon opening her compulsory acknowledgment of the child Melanie Tibigar is not proper
eyes she saw accused Manuel Manahan as he immediately placed himself there being a legal impediment in doing so as it appears that the accused
on top of her. She tried to shout but the accused covered her mouth. He is a married man. As pronounced by this Court in People v.
then forcibly spread her legs. She cried; she pushed and kicked him many Guerrero, 16 the rule is that if the rapist is a married man, he cannot be
times in an effort to free herself but the accused proved too strong for her. compelled to recognize the offspring of the crime, should there be any, as
Soon enough she became weary and exhausted. Her condition enabled his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate." Consequently, that portion of
the accused to pursue his immoral intentions. He lifted her skirt, removed the judgment under review is accordingly deleted. In any case, we sustain
her panty and then inserted his penis into her vagina. He succeeded in that part ordering the accused to support the child as it is in accordance
having carnal knowledge of her. After satisfying his lust, the accused with law.
warned the victim not to report the incident to anyone and threatened her
that should she squeal he would kill her and her family. Thereafter, he left G.R. No. 163209               October 30, 2009
her. She was terribly afraid and shaken and could do nothing but cry until SPOUSES PRUDENCIO and FILOMENA LIM vs MA. CHERYL S. LIM,
dawn. for herself and on behalf of her minor children LESTER EDWARD S.
Within the month Teresita left the canteen and returned home to her LIM, CANDICE GRACE S. LIM, and MARIANO S. LIM, III
parents in Mangaldan, Pangasinan. The sexual encounter resulted in her
pregnancy. When her parents discovered it and learned of her story, they Facts:
brought her to the hospital where she was examined by Dr. Casimero
Bacugan. From there they proceeded to the police station where a

2
In 1979, respondent Cheryl S. Lim (Cheryl) married Edward Lim (Edward), Professor Pineda is of the view that grandchildren cannot demand support
son of petitioners. Cheryl bore Edward three children, respondents Lester directly from their grandparents if they have parents (ascendants of
Edward, Candice Grace and Mariano III. Cheryl, Edward and their children nearest degree) who are capable of supporting them. This is so because
resided at the house of petitioners in Forbes Park, Makati City, together we have to follow the order of support under Art. 199. We agree with this
with Edward’s ailing grandmother, Chua Giak and her husband Mariano view
Lim (Mariano). Edward’s family business, which provided him with a
monthly salary of ₱6,000, shouldered the family expenses. Cheryl had no Here, there is no question that Cheryl is unable to discharge her obligation
steady source of income. to provide sufficient legal support to her children, then all school-bound. It
is also undisputed that the amount of support Edward is able to give to
On 14 October 1990, Cheryl abandoned the Forbes Park residence, respondents, ₱6,000 a month, is insufficient to meet respondents’ basic
bringing the children with her (then all minors), after a violent confrontation needs. This inability of Edward and Cheryl to sufficiently provide for their
with Edward whom she caught with the in-house midwife of Chua Giak in children shifts a portion of their obligation to the ascendants in the nearest
what the trial court described "a very compromising situation."3 degree, both in the paternal (petitioners) and maternal 19 lines, following the
Cheryl, for herself and her children, sued petitioners, Edward, Chua Giak ordering in Article 199. To hold otherwise, and thus subscribe to
and Mariano (defendants) in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, petitioners’ theory, is to sanction the anomalous scenario of tolerating
Branch 140 (trial court) for support. The trial court ordered Edward to extreme material deprivation of children because of parental inability to
provide monthly support of ₱6,000 pendente lite.4 give adequate support even if ascendants one degree removed are more
In the trial court Edward having no regular income was charge to provide than able to fill the void.
for Cheryl and her children 6,000 pesos per month and the rest of the
balance of 34,000 will be shouldered by his parents or the grand parents of The person obliged to give support shall have the option to fulfill the
the children. They raised an MR questioning the basis of their liability for obligation either by paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and
support. Thus it was raise to the CA via appeal and the CA affirmed the maintaining in the family dwelling the person who has a right to receive
decision of the trial court, thus this issue in SC/ support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of in case there is
a moral or legal obstacle thereto. (Emphasis supplied)
Issue: is subject to its exception clause. Here, the persons entitled to receive
The issue is whether petitioners are concurrently liable with Edward to support are petitioners’ grandchildren and daughter-in-law. Granting
provide support to respondents. petitioners the option in Article 204 will secure to the grandchildren a well-
provided future; however, it will also force Cheryl to return to the house
Held: which, for her, is the scene of her husband’s infidelity. While not rising to
We rule in the affirmative. However, we modify the appealed judgment by the level of a legal obstacle, as indeed, Cheryl’s charge against Edward for
limiting petitioners’ liability to the amount of monthly support needed by concubinage did not prosper for insufficient evidence, her steadfast
respondents Lester Edward, Candice Grace and Mariano III only. insistence on its occurrence amounts to a moral impediment bringing the
Petitioners Liable to Provide Support but only to their Grandchildren. By case within the ambit of the exception clause of Article 204, precluding its
statutory9 and jurisprudential mandate,10 the liability of ascendants to application.
provide legal support to their descendants is beyond cavil. Petitioners
themselves admit as much – they limit their petition to the narrow question G.R. NO. 165166 - August 15, 2012
of when their liability is triggered, not if they are liable.  CHARLES GOTARDO, Petitioner, v. DIVINA BULING

Facts:

3
 Thus the case was raised to SC for decision.
On September 6, 1995, respondent Divina Buling filed a complaint with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maasin, Southern Leyte, Branch 25, for Issue:
compulsory recognition and support pendente lite, claiming that the The sole issue before us is whether the CA committed a reversible error
petitioner is the father of her child Gliffze. when it set aside the RTC s findings and ordered the petitioner to
recognize and provide legal support to his minor son Gliffze.
On December 1, 1992 at the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank,
Maasin, Southern Leyte branch where she had been hired as a casual Held:
employee, while the petitioner worked as accounting supervisor. 7 The One can prove filiation, either legitimate or illegitimate, through the record
petitioner started courting the respondent in the third week of December of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, an admission of
1992 and they became sweethearts in the last week of January 1993. 8 The filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and
petitioner gave the respondent greeting cards on special occasions, such signed by the parent concerned, or the open and continuous possession of
as on Valentine s Day and her birthday; she reciprocated his love and took the status of a legitimate or illegitimate child, or any other means allowed
care of him when he was ill.9Ï‚rνll by the Rules of Court and special laws.32 We have held that such other
Sometime in September 1993, the petitioner started intimate sexual proof of one's filiation may be a "baptismal certificate, a judicial admission,
relations with the respondent in the former s rented room in the boarding a family bible in which [his] name has been entered, common reputation
house managed by Rodulfo, the respondent s uncle, on Tomas Oppus St., respecting [his] pedigree, admission by silence, the [testimonies] of
Agbao, Maasin, Southern Leyte. They in fact applied for a marriage witnesses, and other kinds of proof [admissible] under Rule 130 of the
license.14 The petitioner even inquired about the costs of a wedding Rules of Court."
reception and the bridal gown. 15 Subsequently, however, the petitioner
backed out of the wedding plans.16Ï‚rνll In this case, the respondent established a prima faciecase that the
The respondent responded by filing a complaint with the Municipal Trial petitioner is the putative father of Gliffze through testimony that she had
Court of Maasin, Southern Leyte for damages against the petitioner for been sexually involved only with one man, the petitioner, at the time of her
breach of promise to marry.17 Later, however, the petitioner and the conception.38 Rodulfo corroborated her testimony that the petitioner and
respondent amicably settled the case.18ςrνll the respondent had intimate relationship.39ςrνll
The respondent gave birth to their son Gliffze on March 9, 1995. 19 When On the other hand, the petitioner did not deny that he had sexual
the petitioner did not show up and failed to provide support to Gliffze, the encounters with the respondent, only that it occurred on a much later date
respondent sent him a letter on July 24, 1995 demanding recognition of than the respondent asserted, such that it was physically impossible for
and support for their child.20 When the petitioner did not answer the the respondent to have been three (3) months pregnant already in
demand, the respondent filed her complaint for compulsory recognition September 1994 when he was informed of the pregnancy. 40 However, the
and support pendente lite.21Ï‚rνl petitioner failed to substantiate his allegations of infidelity and insinuations
In its June 25, 2002 decision, the RTC ordered Charles to provide of promiscuity. His allegations, therefore, cannot be given credence for
2,000.00 as support pindent lite. However is was then dismissed the lack of evidentiary support. The petitioner s denial cannot overcome the
complaint for insufficiency of evidence proving Gliffze s filiation. Thus, respondent s clear and categorical assertions.
Divina appealed to the CA for the decision of the RTC and CA reversed
the decision stating that Divina’s inconsistencies was caused only by a Since filiation is beyond question, support follows as a matter of obligation;
simple misunderstanding of the question and ordered the reinstatement of a parent is obliged to support his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate.45
the 2,000 pesos support pindent lite. Support consists of everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling,
clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with

4
the financial capacity of the family.46 Thus, the amount of support is Headquarters 4ID Camp Evangelista, Cagayan de Oro City had been
variable and, for this reason, no final judgment on the amount of support is repeatedly inflicting physical, verbal, emotional and economic abuse and
made as the amount shall be in proportion to the resources or means of violence upon the petitioner. Respondent in several instances had
the giver and the necessities of the recipient.47 It may be reduced or slapped, mauled and punched petitioner causing her physical harm.
increased proportionately according to the reduction or increase of the
necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the person Economically, petitioner was also deprived by respondent of her spousal
obliged to support.48ςrνll support despite order of the court directing him to give a monthly support
of Php4,000.00. In view of the foregoing, this court finds a need to protect
In this case, we sustain the award of P2,000.00 monthly child support, the life of the petitioner not only physically but also emotionally and
without prejudice to the filing of the proper motion in the RTC for the psychologically. The RTC ruled in favor of Daisy it directed to give 50% of
determination of any support in arrears, considering the needs of the child, whatever retirement benefits as support to her. The AFP Finance Center
Gliffze, during the pendency of this case. informed the court that it will not follow such orders due that the institution
was not part of the proceedings as summons were not sent to them and
G.R. No. 201043               June 16, 2014 thus no jurisdiction by the court. But the RTC, denied such petition and
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Armed Forces thus was raised to CA for resolution. In the CA, the injunctive relief was
of the Philippines Finance Center (AFPFC) vs Daisy Yahon granted and enjoining all the parties in holding the retirement benefits of
Charles Yahon intact. The CA affirms the decision of the RTC and thus
Facts: this issue to the SC.
Daisy R. Yahon (respondent) filed a petition for the issuance of protection
order under the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, 3 otherwise Issue:
known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of the question of law presented is whether petitioner military institution may
2004," against her husband, S/Sgt. Charles A. Yahon (S/Sgt. Yahon), an be ordered to automatically deduct a percentage from the retirement
enlisted personnel of the Philippine Army who retired in January 2006. benefits of its enlisted personnel, and to give the same directly to the
Respondent and S/Sgt. Yahon were married on June 8, 2003. The couple latter’s lawful wife as spousal support in compliance with a protection order
did not have any child but respondent has a daughter with her previous issued by the RTC pursuant to R.A. No. 9262.
live-in partner.
Held:
To insure that petitioner can receive a fair share of respondent’s retirement
and other benefits, the following agencies thru their heads are directed to The benefits authorized under this Decree, except as provided herein,
WITHHOLD any retirement, pension and other benefits of respondent, shall not be subject to attachment, garnishment, levy, execution or any tax
S/SGT. CHARLES A. YAHON, a member of the Armed Forces of the whatsoever; neither shall they be assigned, ceded, or conveyed to any
Philippines assigned at 4ID, Camp Evangelista, Patag, Cagayan de Oro third person: Provided, That if a retired or separated officer or enlisted man
City until further orders from the court. who is entitled to any benefit under this Decree has unsettled money
and/or property accountabilities incurred while in the active service, not
After careful review and scrutiny of the evidence presented in this case, more than fifty per centum of the pension gratuity or other payment due
this court finds that there is a need to permanently protect the applicant, such officer or enlisted man or his survivors under this Decree may be
Daisy R. Yahon from further acts of violence that might be committed by withheld and be applied to settle such accountabilities.
respondent against her. Evidences showed that respondent who was a
member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines assigned at the

5
We hold that Section 8(g) of R.A. No. 9262, being a later enactment,
should be construed as laying down an exception to the general rule According to petitioner, respondent made a promise to provide monthly
above-stated that retirement benefits are exempt from execution. The law support to their son in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty (250) Guildene
itself declares that the court shall order the withholding of a percentage of (which is equivalent to Php17,500.00 more or less).7 However, since the
the income or salary of the respondent by the employer, which shall be arrival of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, respondent never gave
automatically remitted directly to the woman "[n]otwithstanding other laws support to the son, Roderigo.8
to the contrary.
Not long thereafter, respondent cameto the Philippines and remarried in
Section 8(g) of R.A. No. 9262 used the general term "employer," which Pinamungahan, Cebu, and since then, have been residing thereat.9
includes in its coverage the military institution, S/Sgt. Yahon’s employer. Respondent and his new wife established a business known as Paree
Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Thus, Catering, located at Barangay Tajao, Municipality of Pinamungahan, Cebu
Section 8(g) applies to all employers, whether private or government. City.10 To date, all the parties, including their son, Roderigo, are presently
living in Cebu City. Norma filed a criminal complaint against his former
"The scope of reliefs in protection orders is broadened to ensure that the husband for willful neglect to support her child, the information was filed
victim or offended party is afforded all the remedies necessary to curtail with the RTC of Cebu, The RTC ruled in favor of Van Wilsem and
access by a perpetrator to the victim. This serves to safeguard the victim dismissed the criminal complaint, likewise the MR was denied by the trail
from greater risk of violence; to accord the victim and any designated court. The appeal was directly lodged to the SC.
family or household member safety in the family residence, and to prevent
the perpetrator from committing acts that jeopardize the employment and Issue:
support of the victim. It also enables the court to award temporary custody Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor
of minor children to protect the children from violence, to prevent their child under Philippine law?
abduction by the perpetrator and to ensure their financial support."
Held:
G.R. No. 193707               December 10, 2014 Petitioner invokes Article 19530 of the Family Code, which provides the
NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, for and in behalf of her minor child parent’s obligation to support his child. Petitioner contends that
RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM vs ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN notwithstanding the existence of a divorce decree issued in relation to
WILSEM Article 26 of the Family Code,31 respondent is not excused from complying
with his obligation to support his minor child with petitioner.
Facts:
Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman On the other hand, respondent contends that there is no sufficient and
Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland on September 25, 1990.2 On clear basis presented by petitioner that she, as well as her minor son, are
January 19, 1994, they were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo entitled to financial support.32 Respondent also added that by reason of the
Van Wilsem, who at the time of the filing of the instant petition was sixteen Divorce Decree, he is not obligated topetitioner for any financial support. 33
(16) years of age.3
On this point, we agree with respondent that petitioner cannot rely on
Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended on July 19, 1995 by virtue of a Article 19534 of the New Civil Code in demanding support from respondent,
Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court of Holland.4 At that time, who is a foreign citizen, since Article 1535 of the New Civil Code stresses
their son was only eighteen (18) months old.5 Thereafter, petitioner and the principle of nationality. In other words, insofar as Philippine laws are
her son came home to the Philippines.

6
concerned, specifically the provisions of the Family Code on support, the the MR due that such order has already become final and executory since
same only applies to Filipino citizens. By analogy, the same principle respondent’s motion for reconsideration is treated as a mere scrap of
applies to foreigners such that they are governed by their national law with paper for violation of the threeday notice period under Section 4, Rule 15
respect to family rights and duties.36 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, and therefore did not
interrupt the running of the period to appeal. Respondent was given ten
The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls under family (10) days to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of the
rights and duties. Since the respondent is a citizen of Holland or the court for disregarding the March 31, 2004 order granting support pendente
Netherlands, we agree with the RTC-Cebu that he is subject to the laws of lite.
his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to give
support to his child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do so. 37 Danilo appealed to the CA and the CA reversed the decision stating that
the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting ₱250,000.00
In view of respondent’s failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands monthly support to petitioner without evidence to prove his actual income.
in his favor, the doctrine of processual presumption shall govern. Under
this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, The appellate court said that the trial court should not have completely
our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or disregarded the expenses incurred by respondent consisting of the
domestic or internal law.44 Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as purchase and maintenance of the two cars, payment of tuition fees, travel
regards the obligation to support has not been properly pleaded and expenses, and the credit card purchases involving groceries, dry goods
proved in the instant case, it is presumed to be the same with Philippine and books, which certainly inured to the benefit not only of the two
law, which enforces the obligation of parents to support their children and children, but their mother (petitioner) as well. It held that respondent’s act
penalizing the non-compliance therewith. of deferring the monthly support adjudged in CA-G.R. SP No. 84740 was
not contumacious as it was anchored on valid and justifiable reasons.
G.R. Nos. 175279-80               June 5, 2013 Respondent said he just wanted the issue of whether to deduct his
SUSAN LIM-LUA vs DANILO Y. LUA advances be settled first in view of the different interpretation by the trial
court of the appellate court’s decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 84740. It also
Facts: noted the lack of contribution from the petitioner in the joint obligation of
Susan Lim-Lua filed an action for the declaration of nullity of her marriage spouses to support their children.
with respondent Danilo Y. Lua, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-29346 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 14. Issue:
WON a support pindente lite can be subject to the principle of
immutability of judgement?
In her prayer for support pendente lite for herself and her two children,
petitioner sought the amount of ₱500,000.00 as monthly support, citing
Held:
respondent’s huge earnings from salaries and dividends in several
companies and businesses here and abroad. The RTC of Cebu granted
the support amounting to 250k per month. Danilo filed an MR stating that
Susan is not entitled to spousal support considering that she does not
maintain for herself a separate dwelling from their children and respondent
has continued to support the family for their sustenance and well-being in
accordance with family’s social and financial standing. The RTC denied

7
Suffice it to state that the matter of increase or reduction of support should exchange for financial favor.
be submitted to the trial court in which the action for declaration for nullity
of marriage was filed, as this Court is not a trier of facts. The amount of XXX
support may be reduced or increased proportionately according to the Petitioner appealed to the CA arguing that: (1) the trial court decided the
reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources case without affording him the right to introduce evidence on his defense;
or means of the person obliged to support. 34 As we held in Advincula v. and (2) the trial court erred in finding that petitioner is the putative father of
Advincula35 Christian Paulo and ordering him to give monthly support. X X X

…Judgment for support does not become final. The right to support is of On the paternity issue, the CA affirmed the trial court’s ruling that
such nature that its allowance is essentially provisional; for during the respondent satisfactorily established the illegitimate filiation of her son
entire period that a needy party is entitled to support, his or her alimony Christian Paulo, and consequently no error was committed by the trial
may be modified or altered, in accordance with his increased or decreased court in granting respondent’s prayer for support.
needs, and with the means of the giver. It cannot be regarded as subject to Christian Paulo, in instant case, does not enjoy the benefit of a record of
final determination. birth in the civil registry which bears acknowledgment signed by Narciso
Salas. He cannot claim open and continuous possession of the status of
an illegitimate child.
ORDERING Danilo Y. Lua to resume payment of his monthly support of
Ph₱115,000.00 pesos starting from the time payment of this amount was
It had been established by plaintiff’s evidence, however, that during her
deferred by him subject to the deduction aforementioned.
pregnancy, Annabelle was provided by Narciso Salas with an apartment at
a rental of P1,500.00 which he paid for (TSN, October 6, 1995, p. 18).
G.R. No. 180284, September 11, 2013
Narciso provided her with a household help with a salary of P1,500.00 a
NARCISO SALAS v.ANNABELLE MATUSALEM
month (TSN, October 6, 1995, ibid). He also provided her a monthly food
Respondent claimed that petitioner is. the father of her son Christian Paulo allowance of P1,500.00 (Ibid, p. 18). Narciso was with Annabelle at the
hospital while the latter was in labor, “walking” her around and massaging
Salas who was born on December 28, 1994. Petitioner, already 56 years
her belly (Ibid, p. 11). Narciso brought home Christian Paulo to the rented
old at the time, enticed her as she was then only 24 years old, making her
apartment after Annabelle’s discharge from the hospital. People living in
believe that he is a widower. X X X However, when respondent refused the
the same apartment units were witnesses to Narciso’s delight to father a
offer of petitioner’s family to take the child from her, petitioner abandoned
son at his age which was his “look alike”. It was only after the 18 th day
respondent and her child and left them to the mercy of relatives and
when Annabelle refused to give him Christian Paulo that Narciso withdrew
friends. Respondent further alleged that she attempted suicide due to
his support to him and his mother.
depression but still petitioner refused to support her and their child.
Said testimony of Annabelle aside from having been corroborated by
Respondent thus prayed for support pendente lite  and monthly support in
Grace Murillo, the owner of the apartment which Narciso rented, was
the amount of P20,000.00 x x x
never rebutted on record. Narciso did not present any evidence, verbal or
documentary, to repudiate plaintiff’s evidence.
X X X Petitioner denied paternity of the child Christian Paulo; he was
motivated by no other reason except genuine altruism when he agreed to ISSUE: Is the evidence sufficient to prove paternity? Can an action for
shoulder the expenses for the delivery of said child, unaware of support continue despite the supervening death of the petitioner?
respondent’s chicanery and deceit designed to “scandalize” him in

8
RULING: apartment, though replete with details, do not approximate the
1. NO. Under Article 175 of the Family Code of the Philippines, “overwhelming evidence, documentary and testimonial”
illegitimate filiation may be established in the same way and on the In sum, we hold that the testimonies of respondent and Murillo, by
same evidence as legitimate children. themselves are not competent proof of paternity and the totality of
respondent’s evidence failed to establish Christian Paulo’s filiation to
Article 172 of the Family Code of the Philippines states: petitioner.
The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of
the following: Time and again, this Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is
required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for recognition and
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the
final judgment; or family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence. 40
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed
by the parent concerned. 2. YES. Finally, we note the Manifestation and Motion 41 filed by petitioner’s
counsel informing this Court that petitioner had died on May 6, 2010.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate
filiation shall be proved by: The action for support having been filed in the trial court when petitioner
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a was still alive, it is not barred under Article 175 (2) 42 of the Family Code.
legitimate child; or We have also held that the death of the putative father is not a bar to the
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and action commenced during his lifetime by one claiming to be his illegitimate
special laws. (Underscoring supplied.) child.43 The rule on substitution of parties provided in Section 16, Rule 3 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, thus applies.
Here, while the CA held that Christian Paulo Salas could not claim open
and continuous possession of status of an illegitimate child, it nevertheless RICHELLE P. ABELLA, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR
considered the testimonial evidence sufficient proof to establish his filiation DAUGHTER, MARL JHORYLLE ABELLA V. POLICARPIO CABAÑERO
to petitioner.
FACTS: Filiation must be established for a child to claim support from a
An illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his claimed filiation by putative father. When "filiation is beyond question, support follows as [a]
“any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws,” like his
matter of obligation."[1] To establish filiation, an action for compulsory
baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name
recognition may be filed against the putative father ahead of an action for
has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission
by silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof support. In the alternative, an action for support may be directly filed,
admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. 38 Reviewing the records, where the matter of filiation shall be integrated and resolved.[2]
we find the totality of respondent’s evidence insufficient to establish that In a Complaint[8] for Support x x x petitioner Richelle alleged that x x x
petitioner is the father of Christian Paulo. she was repeatedly sexually abused by respondent Cabañero inside his
rest house x x x she allegedly gave birth to a child on August 21, 2002.[10]
The testimonies of respondent and Murillo as to the circumstances of the
birth of Christian Paulo, petitioner’s financial support while respondent Richelle prayed for the child's monthly allowance in the amount of
lived in Murillo’s apartment and his regular visits to her at the said P3,000.00.[12]

9
 Indeed, an integrated determination of filiation is "entirely appropriate"[48]
X X X In her testimony, Richelle noted that Cabañero was related to her to the action for support filed by petitioner Richelle for her child. An action
mother and that she treated him as her uncle. She narrated how she was for support may very well resolve that ineluctable issue of paternity if it
sexually abused by Cabañero on July 25, 2000, September 10, 2000, and involves the same parties, is brought before a court with the proper
February 8, 2002 and how Cabañero threatened her to keep her silent. jurisdiction, prays to impel recognition of paternal relations, and invokes
She added that during this period, Cabañero sent her three (3) letters. She judicial intervention to do so. This does not run afoul of any rule. To the
testified that she bore her and Cabañero's child, whom she named Marl contrary, and consistent with Briz v. Briz,[49] this is in keeping with the
Jhorylle Abella, on August 21, 2002. She insisted on her certainty that rules on proper joinder of causes of action.[50] This also serves the
Cabañero was the father of the child as she supposedly had no sexual interest of judicial economy—avoiding multiplicity of suits and cushioning
relations with any other man.[15] litigants from the vexation and costs of a protracted pleading of their
cause.
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that filiation
proceedings should have first been separately instituted to ascertain the Thus, it was improper to rule here, as the Court of Appeals did, that it was
minor child's paternity and that without these proceedings having first been impossible to entertain petitioner's child's plea for support without her and
resolved in favor of the child's paternity claim, petitioner Richelle P. petitioner first surmounting the encumbrance of an entirely different judicial
Abella's action for support could not prosper. proceeding. Without meaning to lend credence to the minutiae of
petitioner's claims, it is quite apparent that the rigors of judicial
RULING: YES. X X X Agustin v. Court of Appeals[43] x x x proceedings have been taxing enough for a mother and her daughter
whose claim for support amounts to a modest P3,000.00 every month.
This Court added that an action to compel recognition could very well be When petitioner initiated her action, her daughter was a toddler; she is, by
integrated with an action for support. This Court drew analogies with extant now, well into her adolescence. The primordial interest of justice and the
jurisprudence that sustained the integration of an action to compel basic dictum that procedural rules are to be "liberally construed in order to
recognition with an action to claim inheritance and emphasized that "the promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
basis or rationale for integrating them remains the same," disposition of every action and proceeding"[51] impel us to grant the
present Petition.
In Tayag v. Court of Appeals, we allowed the integration of an action to
compel recognition with an action to claim one's inheritance: X X X

Although the instant case deals with support rather than inheritance, as in
Tayag, the basis or rationale for integrating them remains the same.
Whether or not respondent Martin is entitled to support depends
completely on the determination of filiation. A separate action will only
result in a multiplicity of suits, given how intimately related the main issues
in both cases are. To paraphrase Tayag, the declaration of filiation is
entirely appropriate to these proceedings.[47] (Citations omitted)

10