SUPPORT 2014

Pelayo vs Lauron obligation which the law has expressly established

between the married couple.
Facts:

Arturo Pelayo, a physician filed a complaint against

Marcelo Lauron and Juana Abella for the collection
of payment for the medical services he rendered to
their daughter-in-law whom he assisted in childbirth.
The defendant contends that the said daughter-in-
law died in childbirth and when she was alive live
separately with her husband in a separate house
without any whatever relation to them.

Issue:

Who is duty bound to pay the medical bills of the

daughter-in-law, the father and the mother-in-law or
the husband

Held:

According to article 1089 of the Civil Code,

obligations are created by law, by contracts, by
quasi-contracts, and by illicit acts and omissions or
by those in which any kind of fault or negligence
occurs.

Obligations arising from law are not presumed.

Those expressly determined in the code or in special
laws, etc., are the only demandable ones.
Obligations arising from contracts have legal force
between the contracting parties and must be
fulfilled in accordance with their stipulations. (Arts.
1090 and 1091.)

The rendering of medical assistance in case of illness

is comprised among the mutual obligations to which
the spouses are bound by way of mutual support.

If every obligation consists in giving, doing or not

doing something (art. 1088), and spouses are
mutually bound to support each other, there can be
no question but that, when either of them by reason
of illness should be in need of medical assistance,
the other is under the unavoidable obligation to
furnish the necessary services of a physician in order
that health may be restored, and he or she may be
freed from the sickness by which life is jeopardized;
the party bound to furnish such support is therefore
liable for all expenses, including the fees of the
medical expert for his professional services. This
liability originates from the above-cited mutual

1 Criselda B. Teoxon San Sebastian College Recoletos-Manila College of Law


Sanchez vs Zulueta
Facts:
Plaintiffs are the wife and child of defendant who
refused and continues to refuse to support the
plaintiff for the reason that he has no means of
subsistence despite being a recipient of a monthly
pension from the US Army and has left them without
any justifiable cause and now refuses to allow them
to live with him. The defendant contends that it was
the plaintiff who left the conjugal dwelling as the
latter committed adultery with a Macario Sanchez
and with whom she had an illicit affair and bore a
child who is the other plaintiff in this case. The
plaintiff asks the court to compel the defendant to
give them allowance by way of support pendent lite
the amount of P50 a month. The court ruled in favor
of the plaintiff and ordered defendant to pay
support pendent lite in the amount of P50 a month.
The defendant filed a petition for prohibition againt
the judge in the CFI in the court of appeals which
denied said petition hence defendant appeal to this
court.
Issue:
Whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to support
Held:
No the plaintiffs are not entitled to support.
Adultery on the part of the wife is a valid defense
against an action for support (Quintana vs. Lerma, 24
Phil., 285). Consequently, as to the child, it is also a
defense that it is the fruit of such adulterous
relations, for in that case, it would not be the child of
the defendant and, hence, would not be entitled to
support as such. But as this defense should be
established, and not merely alleged, it would be
unavailing if proof thereof is not permitted.
2 Criselda B. Teoxon San Sebastian College Recoletos-Manila College of Law
SUPPORT 2014
Reyes vs Ines-Luciano
Facts:
Petitioner Celia Ilustre-Reyes filed a petition for legal
separation on the ground that her husband Manuel
Reyes attempted to kill her for several times. She
then asked for support pendent lite for her and their
three children. Manuel Reyes opposed the petition
for support pendente lite on the ground that his wife
commited adultery with her physician. The trial
court granted the prayer for alimony pendente lite
of the petitioner and ordered J.C Reyes to give
support in the amount of P5,000 a month. He filed a
motion for reconsideration reiterating the
entitlement of the wife to support as well as that the
award of support was excessive. The trial court judge
then reduced the amount from 5,000 to 4,400 a
month. Manuel J. C. Reyes filed a petition for
certiorari in the Court of Appeals dated July 25, 1977
asking that the order granting support pendente
lite to private respondent. Celia Ilustre-Reyes, be
annulled on the ground that the respondent Judge,
Leonor Ines-Luciano, had committed a grave abuse
of discretion or that said order be modified
inasmuch as the amount awarded as
support pendente lite is excessive. The Court of
appeals dismissed the petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to support
Held:
It is true that the adultery of the wife is a defense in
an action for support however, the alleged adultery
of wife must be established by competent evidence.
The allegation that the wife has committed adultery
will not bar her from the right receive
support pendente lite. Adultery is a good defense
and if properly proved and sustained wig defeat the
action.
In the instant case, at the hearing of the application
for support pendente lite before the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court presided by the
respondent Judge, Hon. Leonor Ines-Luciano the
petitioner did not present any evidence to prove the
allegation that his wife, private respondent Celia
Ilustre-Reyes, had committed adultery with any
person.

Lerma vs Court of Appeals
Facts:
Petitioner Lerma and respondent Diaz are husband
and wife. Lerma filed a case of adultery against
petitioner and against a certain Teodoro Ramirez.
Respondent filed a complaint against petitioner,
legal separation and/or separation of properties,
custody of their children and support with an urgent
petition for support pendente lite for her and their
youngest son Gregory who was under her custody.
The respondents petition for legal separation was
based on two grounds: concubinage and attempt
against her life. Lerma opposed the petition for
support pendente lite setting up as defense the
adultery charge he had filed against respondent. The
trial court judge granted the petition for support
pendente lite and declared the respondent entitled
to support in the amount of P2,250 reduced to
P1,820. he petitioner filed with respondent Court of
Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction to annul the aforementioned
orders on the ground that they were issued with
grave abuse of discretion. The next day the
respondent court gave due course to the petition
and issued a writ of preliminary injunction to stop
Judge Luciano from enforcing said orders.
Issue:
Whether adultery is a good defense in against the
claim of respondent for support pendente lite
Held:
It is suggested that while adultery may be a defense
in an action for personal support, that is, support of
the wife by the husband from his own funds, it is not
a defense when the support is to be taken from the
conjugal partnership property.
We do not see that the distinction is material in this
case. In the first place Article 292 is not in itself the
source of the legal right to receive support. It merely
states that the support, not only of the spouses but
also of the children, shall be taken from the conjugal
property during the pendency of the legal separation
proceeding. It does not preclude the loss of such
right in certain cases. In the second place, the said
article contemplates the pendency of a court action
and, inferentially at least, a prima facie showing that
the action will prosper. For if the action is shown to
3 Criselda B. Teoxon San Sebastian College Recoletos-Manila College of Law
SUPPORT 2014
be groundless the mere filing thereof will not
necessarily set Article 292 in operation. This is also
the sense of Section 5 of Rule 61, supra, which
requires, among other things, when
support pendente lite is applied for, that the court
determine provisionally "the probable outcome of
the case."
Article 100 of the Civil Code provides that "the legal
separation may be claimed only by the innocent
spouse, provided there has been no condonation of
or consent to the adultery or concubinage ... (and)
where both spouses are offenders, a legal separation
cannot be claimed by either of them ..."
In a provisional sense at least, within the meaning of
Rule 61 (Section 5), the probable failure of the
respondent's suit for legal separation can be
foreseen since she is not an innocent spouse, having
been convicted of adultery by the Court of First
Instance. It is true that the judgment of conviction is
on appeal in the Court of Appeals, but the same
undoubtedly satisfies the standard of provisional
showing set by the aforesaid Rule. If legal separation
cannot be claimed by the guilty spouse in the first
place, the fact that an action for that purpose is filed
anyway should not be permitted to be used as a
means to obtain support pendente lite, which,
without such action, would be denied on the
strength of the decisions of this Court recognizing
adultery as a good defense. Otherwise, as pointed
out by the petitioner, all that an erring spouse has to
do to circumvent such defense would be to file a suit
for legal separation no matter how groundless.
The right to separate support or maintenance, even
from the conjugal partnership property, presupposes
the existence of a justifiable cause for the spouse
claiming such right to live separately. This is implicit
in Article 104 of the Civil Code, which states that
after the filing of the petition for legal separation the
spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each
other. A petition in bad faith, such as that filed by
one who is himself or herself guilty of an act which
constitutes a ground for legal separation at the
instance of the other spouse, cannot be considered
as within the intendment of the law granting
separate support. In fact under Article 303 of the
same Code the obligation to give support shall cease
"when the recipient, be he a forced heir or not, has
committed some act which gives rise to

disinheritance;" and under Article 921 one of the
causes for disinheriting a spouse is "when the spouse
has given cause for legal separation." The loss of the
substantive right to support in such a situation is
incompatible with any claim for support pendente
lite.
4 Criselda B. Teoxon San Sebastian College Recoletos-Manila College of Law
SUPPORT 2014
Canonizado vs Benitez
Facts:
Petitioner filed an action for support against her
estranged husband, the private respondent.The trial
court granted the claim for their minor child
Christina in the amount of P100.00 monthly but
denied similar support for the petitioner on the
ground that she was gainfully employed.
The petitioner questioned this decision in a petition
for certiorari with this Court considered the
appealed decision a mere order resolving the
petitioner's motion for alimony pendente lite and
modified it by granting support both for the minor
child and the petitioner in the monthly amount of
P100.00 each. When the corresponding writ of
execution was issued, the respondent filed an action
in the Court of First Instance to restrain the sale by
public auction of certain properties over which he
claimed to have lost ownership. he trial court
declared the supposed conveyance of such
properties to be simulated and ordered the sheriff to
proceed with the auction sale. The decision became
final when the appeal filed by the private
respondent was later withdrawn. A decision on the
merits was promulgated by the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court awarding arrearages in
support pendente lite to both the petitioner and her
daughter plus current monthly support for the latter
at the rate of P150.00 beginning October 1964.
Held:
Art. 303. The obligation to give support shall also
cease:
:x x x x3) When the recipient may engage in a trade,
profession, or industry, or has obtained work, or has
improved his fortune in such a way that he no longer
needs the allowance for his subsistence;x x x
When any of the above circumstances occurs,
the support stops since the recipient no longer
needs it for subsistence. It does not mean, however,
that the obligation to give or the right to ask for
support also ceases permanently because the lack of
a need for it may only be temporary. In other words,
the above circumstances do not affect the right to
support between spouses but only the action to
 SUPPORT 2014
make it demandable, such right being born from the
law and created as such by the marriage tie. It
subsists throughout the period that the
marriage subsists

5 Criselda B. Teoxon San Sebastian College Recoletos-Manila College of Law