Scribd
Upload
206 views3 pages

4 Coquia Vs Baltazar, G.R. No. L-2942, December 29, 1949

The Supreme Court granted the petitioners' petition to annul the orders from the lower court granting alimony pendente lite to the respondents. The Court held that Rule 63 allowing alimony pendente lite did not apply because the underlying action was to recover ownership and possession of real property, not an action for support. Additionally, the petitioners were not legally obligated to support the respondents under Article 143 of the Civil Code since they were merely the sister and brother-in-law of the deceased, not direct ascendants or descendants. The orders from the lower court were set aside.

Uploaded by

Perry Yap
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
206 views3 pages

4 Coquia Vs Baltazar, G.R. No. L-2942, December 29, 1949

The Supreme Court granted the petitioners' petition to annul the orders from the lower court granting alimony pendente lite to the respondents. The Court held that Rule 63 allowing alimony pendente lite did not apply because the underlying action was to recover ownership and possession of real property, not an action for support. Additionally, the petitioners were not legally obligated to support the respondents under Article 143 of the Civil Code since they were merely the sister and brother-in-law of the deceased, not direct ascendants or descendants. The orders from the lower court were set aside.

Uploaded by

Perry Yap
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Coquia v.

Baltazar
G.R. No. L-2942, December 29, 1949

OZAETA, J.:
Facts:
Respondents Gaspara, Francisca, Dionisio, Alfredo, and
Salvador Coquia, assisted by their mother and guardianad
litem Maria Dalori, filed an action in the Court of the First
Instance of Leyte against the spouses Silvestra Coquia and
Luis Carandang to recover the possession as owner of four
parcels of land. They alleged that they are acknowledged
natural children and the sole heirs of the latter. The
petitioners (Silvestra and Luis) in their answer denied that
the respondents are acknowledged natural children of the
deceased
Alfredo
Coquia.
Pending the trial of the case said respondents (plaintiff's
below) filed a petition for alimony pendente lite which Judge
Edmundo S. Piccio granted in the sum of P200 a month
(subsequently
reduced
to
P100
a
month).
The respondent judge, Honorable Rodolfo Baltazar, a denied
petitioners' motion for reconsideration. He held that the
order of Judge Piccio for alimony pendente lite was well
founded. On February 26, 1949, ordered the issuance of a
writ of execution against the herein petitioners to collect the
sum of P400 corresponding to four months of unpaid
alimony.
Petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari to annul
the above mentioned orders.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge erred in granting the
petition for alimony pendent lite, writ of execution, and
order of denial of the motion for reconsideration.

Held:
YES. Rule 63 of the Rules of the Court, which authorizes the
granting of alimony pendente lite" at the commencement of
the proper action, or at any time afterwards but prior to the
final judgment," is not applicable to this case. The action
commenced before the respondent judge was not for
support but for the recovery of the ownership and
possession of real property. Manifestly such an action is not
"the proper action" contemplated by said rule The mere fact
that the plaintiffs have legal and equitable rights in the
property they seek to recover (Q. E. D. ) does not authorize
the court to compel the defendants to support the plaintiffs
pending
the
determination
of
the
suit.
Moreover, the petitioners, who are sister and brother-in law,
respectively, of the deceased Alfredo Coquia, are not bound
to support the alleged natural children of the latter. Under
the article 143 of the Civil Code only the following are bound
to support each other: (1) husband and wife: (2) legitimate
ascendants and descendants: and (3) parents and
acknowledged natural children, and the legitimate
descendants of the latter.

PETITION IS GRANTED. ORDERS complained of are SET


ASIDE.

You might also like