CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUES DEFENSE OF RESPONDENT SC RULINGS Violations of RA 9262

STEVEN R. PAVLOW VS.

CHERRY L MENDENILLA, G.R
NO. 181489, APRIL 19, 2017

NORMA A DEL SOCORRO VS. Norma A. Del Socorro and Whether or not Wilsem, a Divorce Covenant presented Yes. The deprivation or denial Violation of Sec 5, Parag e (2)
ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN Ernst Van Wilsem contracted foreign citizen may be held by respondent does not or denial of financial support
VAN WILSEM, G.R NO marriage in Holland. They liable for violation of RA 9262 completely show that he is to the child is considered an
193707, DECEMBER 10, 2014 were blessed with a son not liable to give support to act of violence against
named Roderigo Norjo Van his son after the divorce women and children.
Wilsem. Unfortunately, their decree was issued. It cannot be gainsaid,
marriage bond ended by therefore, that the
virtue of a Divorce Decree respondent is not obliged to
issued by the appropriate support petitioner's son as a
Court of Holland. Thereafter, consequence of the Divorce
Norma and her son came Covenant obtained.
home to the Philippines.
According to Norma, Ernst
made a promise to provide
monthly support to their son.
However, since the arrival of
petitioner and her son in the
Philippines, Ernst never gave
support to Roderigo.
Respondent remarried again
a Filipina and resides again
the Philippines particularly in
Cebu where the petitioner
also resides. Norma filed a
complaint against Ernst for
violation of R.A. No. 9262 for
the latter’s unjust refusal to
support his minor child with
petitioner.
MA. BELEN B. MANGONON Ma. Belen B. Mangonon filed,
VS CA, G.R NO. 125041, in behalf of her then minor
JUNE 30, 2006 children Rica and Rina, a
Petition for Declaration of
Legitimacy and Support, with
application for support
pendente lite with the RTC.
Petitioner and respondent
Federico Delgado were civilly
married by then City Court
Judge. At that time,
petitioner was only 21 years
old while respondent
Federico was only 19 years
old. As the marriage was
solemnized without the
required consent per Article
85 of the New Civil Code, it
was annulled. Within seven
months after the annulment
of their marriage, petitioner
gave birth to twins Rica and
Rina. According to petitioner,
she, with the assistance of
her second husband Danny
Mangonon, raised her twin
daughters as private
respondents had totally
abandoned them. At the time
of the institution of the
petition, Rica and Rina were
about to enter college in the
United States of America
(USA) where petitioner,
Whether Francisco is obliged
to support Rica and Rina.
The latter’s contention to
avail of the option under FC,
Article 204 anent his
obligation.
RTC ruled in favor of Belen
and directed Federico and
Francisco to provide a
monthly support (pendente
lite) for the education of the
twins. CA affirmed the RTC
decision. Unsatisfied with the
decision, Belen brought this
instant petition. Here,
Federico argues that
assuming he is indeed the
father of the twin sisters, he
has the option under the law
as to how he would provide
support. Francisco, on the
other hand, posits that
because Belen and her twins
are now US citizens, they
cannot invoke the Family
Code provisions on support
as “laws relating to family
rights and duties, or to the
status, condition and legal
capacity of persons are
binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though
living abroad.
Guided by this principle, SC
hold respondent Francisco
liable for half of the amount
of school expenses incurred
by Rica and Rina as support
pendente lite. The court
 together with her daughters
and second husband, had
moved to and finally settled
in. Both Rica and Rina Rica
was admitted to the
University College. Despite
their admissions to said
universities, Rica and Rina
were, however, financially
incapable of pursuing
collegiate education.
CHARLES GOTARDO VS. SUMMARY:
DIVINA BULIG, G.R NO. Single mother seeking child
165166, AUGUST 15, 2012 support through establishing
filiation with ex-fiancee.
Respondent Divina Bulig filed
a complaint with RTC for
compulsory recognition and
support pendent lite,
claiming that the petitioner is
the father of her child. Later,
the respondent gave birth
and petitioner did not show
up and failed to provide
support for their child.
However, petitioner denied
the imputed paternity.
During the pendency of the
case, the RTC, on the
respondents’ motion granted
monthly child support. The
CA consequently set asde the
RTC decision and ordered the
Whether or not the CA
committed a reversible error
when it set aside the RTCs
findings and ordered the
petitioner to recognize and
provide legal support to his
minor son.
deems it proper to award
support pendente lite in
arrears to be computed from
the time they entered college
until they had finished their
respective studies. And order
the return of the amounts
already paid with legal
interest from the dates of
actual payment.
Petitioner argues that the SC denied the petition and
evidence on record is AFFIRMED the CA ruling
insufficient to prove sustaining the award of
paternity. monthly child support, not
finding any reversible error in
CA’s ruling. In this case, the
respondent established a
prima facie case that the
petitioner is the putative
father through testimony
that she had been sexually
involved only with one man,
the petitioner, at the time of
her conception. His
allegations, therefore, cannot
be given credence for lack of
evidentiary support. The
petitioner’s denial cannot
overcome the respondent’s
clear and categorical
assertions. Since filiation is
beyond question, support
follows as a matter of
petitioner to recognize his
minor son. It also reinstated
the RTC order for monthly
child support. The petitioner
argues that the CA
committed a reversible error
in rejecting the RTCs ruling,
and the evidence on record is
insufficient to prove
paternity.
obligation; a parent is obliged
to support his child; whether
legitimate or illegitimate.
Support consists of
everything indispensable for
sustenance, dwelling,
clothing, medical attendance,
education and
transportation, in keeping
with financial incapacity of
the family.