Professional Documents
Culture Documents
QUINTANA VS LERMA
24 Phil 285
Facts:
In the case at bar, defendant-appellant Gelasio Lerma appeals
from the judgment of the lower court granting his wife, the plaintiffappellee Maria Quintana, a sum of money allegedly due her based on a
contract they made for support.
As shown in the evidence, the two were married in 1901 and
entered, in February 1905, into a written agreement of separation,
renouncing certain rights as against each other, dividing the conjugal
property between them and the defendant undertaking the duty to
provide plaintiff P20-worth of monthly support and maintenance to be
given within the first three days of each month.
In his original answer to the action, Lerma claimed that Quintana
forfeited her right to support by committing adultery. However, this
special defense was stricken out by the court on the ground that under
Art. 152 of the Civil Code, adultery is not a recognized ground upon
which obligation to support ceases.
The lower court refused to recognize the same defense when
defendant reentered it in his amended complaint.
Issue:
W/N the written agreement made by parties is void
W/N adultery may be permitted as a special defense against
action for support
Ruling:
Yes. The agreement is void because Art. 1432 of the Civil Code
provides that in default of express declarations in the marriage
contract, the separation of the property of the consorts, during
marriage, shall only take place by virtue of a judicial decree, except in
the case provided by article 50. However, the wife has a right of
action against defendant under the Code.
Yes. While the plaintiff wife has the right of action, the Court
ruled that the defendant may also set up adultery as a special defense,
which if properly proved and sustain will defeat the wifes action.
Judgment reversed; cause remanded for new trial with
instructions to permit the interposition of the special defense
of adultery and such amendments of the complaint and answer
as may be necessary to carry the judgment into effect.
MENDOZA VS PARUGAO
41 Phil 271
Facts:
Ruling:
Yes. According to Art. 196 of the Civil Code, the amount of
support should be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver
and the needs of the recipient. The lower court found that defendantappellee, who was supporting his wife and legitimate children, was
earning amply from his rice mill, ten-hectare land and palay produce,
which places his average annual income at P1,085. Additionally, the
court took notice of the facts that he does not need to pay rent for his
familys residence and his tailoring shop was profiting well.
No. The Supreme Court ruled that obligation to give support
shall be demandable from the time the person who has a right to
receive it needs it for maintenance. However, it shall not be paid from
the date it is extrajudicially demanded.
Additionally, the Court held that attorneys fees are recoverable
from the person obliged to give support when the other party entitled
to such support had to resort to the court for the enforcement of his
right.
Judgment modified. Defendant-appellee is sentenced to pay
Armenio Serfino the sum of P25.00 monthly from June 1959 (when the
extrajudicial demand was made) and the sum of P300.00 as attorney's
fees, with costs.