FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 125041 : June 30, 2006]
MA. BELEN B. MANGONON, for and in behalf of her minor children REBECCA ANGELA
DELGADO and REGINA ISABEL DELGADO. Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.
JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA, Presiding Judge, RTC-Makati, Branch 149, FEDERICO
C. DELGADO and FRANCISCO C. DELGADO, Respondents.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated 20
March 1996, affirming the Order, dated 12 September 19952 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
149, Makati, granting support pendente lite to Rebecca Angela (Rica) and Regina Isabel (Rina), both
surnamed Delgado.
The generative facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:
On 17 March 1994, petitioner Ma. Belen B. Mangonon filed, in behalf of her then minor children Rica
and Rina, a Petition for Declaration of Legitimacy and Support, with application for support pendente
lite with the RTC Makati.3 In said petition, it was alleged that on 16 February 1975, petitioner and
respondent Federico Delgado were civilly married by then City Court Judge Eleuterio Agudo in Legaspi
City, Albay. 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,4 it was annulled on 11 August 1975 by the Quezon City Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.5
On 25 March 1976, or 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, together with her daughters and second husband, had
moved to and finally settled in. Rica was admitted to the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) while
Rina was accepted by the Long Island University and Western New England College. Despite their
admissions to said universities, Rica and Rina were, however, financially incapable of pursuing
collegiate education because of the following:
i) The average annual cost for college education in the US is about US$22,000/year, broken down as
follows:
Tuition Fees US$13,000.00
Room & Board 5,000.00
Books 1,000.00
Yearly Transportation &
Meal Allowance 3,000.00
Total US$ 22,000.00
or a total of US$44,000.00, more or less, for both Rica and Rina
ii) Additionally, Rica and Rina need general maintenance support each in the amount of US$3,000.00
per year or a total of US$6,000 per year.
iii) Unfortunately, petitioner's monthly income from her 2 jobs is merely US$1,200 after taxes which
she can hardly give general support to Rica and Rina, much less their required college educational
support.
iv) Neither can petitioner's present husband be compelled to share in the general support and college
education of Rica and Rina since he has his own son with petitioner and own daughter (also in college)
to attend to.
v) Worse, Rica and Rina's petitions for Federal Student Aid have been rejected by the U.S. Department
of Education.6
Petitioner likewise averred that demands7 were made upon Federico and the latter's father,
Francisco,8 for general support and for the payment of the required college education of Rica and Rina.
The twin sisters even exerted efforts to work out a settlement concerning these matters with
respondent Federico and respondent Francisco, the latter being generally known to be financially well-
off.9 These demands, however, remained unheeded. Considering the impending deadline for admission
to college and the opening of classes, petitioner and her then minor children had no choice but to file
the petition before the trial court.
Petitioner also alleged that Rica and Rina are her legitimate daughters by respondent Federico since
the twin sisters were born within seven months from the date of the annulment of her marriage to
respondent Federico. However, as respondent Federico failed to sign the birth certificates of Rica and
Rina, it was imperative that their status as legitimate children of respondent Federico, and as
granddaughters of respondent Francisco, be judicially declared pursuant to Article 173 of the Family
Code.10
As legitimate children and grandchildren, Rica and Rina are entitled to general and educational support
under Articles 17411 and 195(b)12 in relation to Articles 194(1 and 2)13 and 199(c)14 of the Family Code.
Petitioner alleged that under these provisions, in case of default on the part of the parents, the
obligation to provide support falls upon the grandparents of the children; thus, respondent Federico,
or in his default, respondent Francisco should be ordered to provide general and educational support
for Rica and Rina in the amount of US$50,000.00, more or less, per year.
Petitioner also claimed that she was constrained to seek support pendente lite from private
respondents - who are millionaires with extensive assets both here and abroad - in view of the
imminent opening of classes, the possibility of a protracted litigation, and Rica and Rina's lack of
financial means to pursue their college education in the USA.
as "there is no basis to claim support until a final and executory judicial declaration has been made as
to the civil status of the children."16 Whatever good deeds he may have done to Rica and Rina,
according to respondent Francisco, was founded on pure acts of Christian charity. He, likewise,
averred that the order of liability for support under Article 199 of the Family Code is not concurrent
such that the obligation must be borne by those more closely related to the recipient. In this case, he
maintained that responsibility should rest on the shoulders of petitioner and her second husband, the
latter having voluntarily assumed the duties and responsibilities of a natural father. Even assuming
that he is responsible for support, respondent Francisco contends that he could not be made to answer
beyond what petitioner and the father could afford.
On 24 May 1994, petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendant (respondent herein) Federico in
Default.17 This was favorably acted upon by the trial court in the Order dated 16 June 1994.18
On 5 August 1994, respondent Federico filed a Motion to Lift Order of Default alleging that the
summons and a copy of the petition were not served in his correct address.19 Attached thereto was his
Answer20 where he claimed that petitioner had no cause of action against him. According to him, he
left for abroad and stayed there for a long time "[w]ithin the first one hundred twenty (120) days of
the three hundred days immediately preceding March 25, 1976" and that he only came to know about
the birth of Rica and Rina when the twins introduced themselves to him seventeen years later. In
order not to antagonize the two, respondent Federico claimed he did not tell them that he could not be
their father. Even assuming that Rica and Rina are, indeed, his daughters, he alleged that he could not
give them the support they were demanding as he was only making P40,000.00 a month.
Finding sufficient ground in the motion filed by respondent Federico, the trial court lifted its Order
dated 16 June 1994 and admitted his Answer.21
In the meantime, on 25 April 1994, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Set Application for Support
Pendente Lite for Hearing because Rica and Rina both badly needed immediate financial resources for
their education.22 This Motion was opposed by respondent Francisco.23 After both parties submitted
supplemental pleadings to bolster their respective positions, the trial court resolved the motion in an
Order dated 12 September 1995 in this wise:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, respondents are hereby directed to provide a
monthly support (pendente lite) of P5,000.00 each or a total of P10,000.00 for the education of
Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel Delgado to be delivered within the first five days of each month
without need of demand.24
Unsatisfied with the Order of the trial court, petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals via
Petition for Certiorari. The Court of Appeals affirmed the holding of the trial court and disposed the
petition in the following manner:
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED and the Order of the lower court dated
September 12, 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED.25
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied through the Resolution of the Court of Appeals
dated 16 May 1996.26
Petitioner is now before this Court claiming that the Decision of the Court of Appeals was tainted with
the following errors:
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT RESPONDENT JUDGE DID NOT
COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF MONTHLY SUPPORT PENDENTE
LITE GRANTED TO PETITIONER'S CHILDREN AT A MEASLEY P5,000.00 PER CHILD.
I.
RESPONDENT COURT IGNORED EVIDENCE ON RECORD OF THE FINANCIAL INCAPACITY OF RICA AND
RINA'S PARENTS IN DEFAULT OF WHOM THE OBLIGATION TO GIVE SUPPORT DEVOLVES ON THE
GRANDFATHER.
II.
IT BEING ESTABLISHED THAT THE PERSON OBLIGED TO GIVE SUPPORT - GRANDFATHER DON PACO
- IS UNDOUBTEDLY CAPABLE OF GIVING THE AMOUNT DEMANDED, RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN
NOT HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FIXING AN
AMOUNT OF SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE THAT IS OBVIOUSLY INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE
EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE RECIPIENTS.27
At the time of the filing of the present Petition, it is alleged that Rica had already entered Rutgers
University in New Jersey with a budget of US$12,500.00 for academic year 1994-1995. She was able
to obtain a tuition fee grant of US$1,190.00 and a Federal Stafford loan from the US government in
the amount of US$2,615.00.28 In order to defray the remaining balance of Rica's education for said
school year, petitioner claims that she had to secure a loan under the Federal Direct Student Loan
Program.
Meanwhile, Rina entered CW Post, Long Island University, where she was expected to spend
US$20,000.00 for the school year 1994-1995. She was given a financial grant of US$6,000.00, federal
work study assistance of US$2,000.00, and a Federal Stafford loan of US$2,625.00.29 Again, petitioner
obtained a loan to cover the remainder of Rina's school budget for the year.
Petitioner concedes that under the law, the obligation to furnish support to Rica and Rina should be
first imposed upon their parents. She contends, however, that the records of this case demonstrate
her as well as respondent Federico's inability to give the support needed for Rica and Rina's college
education. Consequently, the obligation to provide support devolves upon respondent Francisco being
the grandfather of Rica and Rina.
Petitioner also maintains that as respondent Francisco has the financial resources to help defray the
cost of Rica and Rina's schooling, the Court of Appeals then erred in sustaining the trial court's Order
directing respondent Federico to pay Rica and Rina the amount of award P5,000.00 each as monthly
support pendente lite.
On the other hand, respondent Francisco argues that the trial court correctly declared that petitioner
and respondent Federico should be the ones to provide the support needed by their twin daughters
pursuant to Article 199 of the Family Code. He also maintains that aside from the financial package
availed of by Rica and Rina in the form of state tuition aid grant, work study program and federal
student loan program, petitioner herself was eligible for, and had availed herself of, the federal parent
loan program based on her income and properties in the USA. He, likewise, insists that assuming he
could be held liable for support, he has the option to fulfill the obligation either by paying the support
or receiving and maintaining in the dwelling here in the Philippines the person claiming support.30 As
an additional point to be considered by this Court, he posits the argument that because petitioner and
her twin daughters are now US citizens, they cannot invoke the Family Code provisions on support as
"[l]aws 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."31
Respondent Federico, for his part, continues to deny having sired Rica and Rina by reiterating the
grounds he had previously raised before the trial court. Like his father, respondent 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. Lastly, he assents with the declaration of the trial court and the Court of
Appeals that the parents of a child should primarily bear the burden of providing support to their
offspring.
The petition is meritorious.
As a preliminary matter, we deem it necessary to briefly discuss the essence of support pendente lite.
The pertinent portion of the Rules of Court on the matter provides:
Rule 61
SUPPORT 'PENDENTE LITE'
SECTION 1. Application. - At the commencement of the proper action or proceeding, or at any time
prior to the judgment or final order, a verified application for support pendente lite may be filed by
any party stating the grounds for the claim and the financial conditions of both parties, and
accompanied by affidavits, depositions or other authentic documents in support thereof.
xxx
SEC. 4. Order. - The court shall determine provisionally the pertinent facts, and shall render such
orders as justice and equity may require, having due regard to the probable outcome of the case and
such other circumstances as may aid in the proper resolution of the question involved. If the
application is granted, the court shall fix the amount of money to be provisionally paid or such other
forms of support as should be provided, taking into account the necessities of the applicant and the
resources or means of the adverse party, and the terms of payment or mode for providing the
support. If the application is denied, the principal case shall be tried and decided as early as possible.
Under this provision, a court may temporarily grant support pendente lite prior to the rendition of
judgment or final order. Because of its provisional nature, a court does not need to delve fully into the
merits of the case before it can settle an application for this relief. All that a court is tasked to do is
determine the kind and amount of evidence which may suffice to enable it to justly resolve the
application. It is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence
appearing in the record.32 ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrà ¿
After the hearings conducted on this matter as well as the evidence presented, we find that petitioner
was able to establish, by prima facie proof, the filiation of her twin daughters to private respondents
and the twins' entitlement to support pendente lite. In the words of the trial court'
By and large, the status of the twins as children of Federico cannot be denied. They had maintained
constant communication with their grandfather Francisco. As a matter of fact, respondent Francisco
admitted having wrote several letters to Rica and Rina (Exhs. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, G-1 to G-30). In the
said letters, particularly at the bottom thereof, respondent Francisco wrote the names of Rica and
Rina Delgado. He therefore was very well aware that they bear the surname Delgado. Likewise, he
referred to himself in his letters as either "Lolo Paco" or "Daddy Paco." In his letter of October 13,
1989 (Exh. G-21), he said "as the grandfather, am extending a financial help of US$1,000.00." On top
of this, respondent Federico even gave the twins a treat to Hongkong during their visit to the
Philippines. Indeed, respondents, by their actuations, have shown beyond doubt that the twins are the
children of Federico.33
Having addressed the issue of the propriety of the trial court's grant of support pendente lite in favor
of Rica and Rina, the next question is who should be made liable for said award.
The pertinent provision of the Family Code on this subject states:
ART. 199. Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability shall devolve upon
the following persons in the order herein provided:
(1) The spouse;
(2) The descendants in the nearest degree;
(3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and
(4) The brothers and sisters.
An eminent author on the subject explains that the obligation to give support rests principally on those
more closely related to the recipient. However, the more remote relatives may be held to shoulder the
responsibility should the claimant prove that those who are called upon to provide support do not have
the means to do so.34
In this case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals held respondent Federico liable to provide
monthly support pendente lite in the total amount of P10,000.00 by taking into consideration his
supposed income of P30,000.00 to P40,000.00 per month. We are, however, unconvinced as to the
veracity of this ground relied upon by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
It is a basic procedural edict that questions of fact cannot be the proper subject of a Petition for
Review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule finds a more stringent application
where the Court of Appeals upholds the findings of fact of the trial court; in such a situation, this
Court, as the final arbiter, is generally bound to adopt the facts as determined by the appellate and
the lower courts. This rule, however, is not ironclad as it admits of the following recognized
exceptions: "(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2)
when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse
of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of
facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of
the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7)
when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as
well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the
findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence
on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion."35 The case
at bar falls within the seventh and eleventh exceptions.
The trial court gave full credence to respondent Federico's allegation in his Answer36 and his
testimony37 as to the amount of his income. We have, however, reviewed the records of this case and
found them bereft of evidence to support his assertions regarding his employment and his earning.
Notably, he was even required by petitioner's counsel to present to the court his income tax return
and yet the records of this case do not bear a copy of said document.38 This, to our mind, severely
undermines the truthfulness of respondent Federico's assertion with respect to his financial status and
capacity to provide support to Rica and Rina.
In addition, respondent Francisco himself stated in the witness stand that as far as he knew, his son,
respondent Federico did not own anything'
"Atty. Lopez:
I have here another letter under the letter head of Mr. & Mrs. Dany Mangonon, dated October 19,
1991 addressed to Mr. Francisco Delgado signed by "sincerely, Danny Mangonon, can you remember."
xxx
WITNESS:
A: I do remember this letter because it really irritated me so much that I threw it away in a waste
basket. It is a very demanding letter, that is what I do not like at all.
ATTY. LOPEZ:
Q: It is stated in this letter that "I am making this request to you and not to your son, Rico, for
reasons we both are aware of." Do you know what reason that is? cralawlibrary
A: Yes. The reason is that my son do not have fix employment and do not have fix salary and income
and they want to depend on the lolo.
xxxx
ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrà ¿
Q: Would you have any knowledge if Federico owns a house and lot? cralawlibrary
A: Not that I know. I do not think he has anything.
Q: How about a car? cralawlibrary
A: Well, his car is owned by my company.39
Respondent Federico himself admitted in court that he had no property of his own, thus:
Q: You also mentioned that you are staying at Mayflower Building and you further earlier testified that
this building belongs to Citadel Corporation. Do you confirm that? cralawlibrary
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What car are you driving, Mr. Witness? cralawlibrary
A: I am driving a lancer, sir.
Q: What car, that registered in the name of the corporation? cralawlibrary
A: In the corporation, sir.
Q: What corporation is that? cralawlibrary
A: Citadel Commercial, Inc., sir.
Q: What properties, if any, are registered in your name, do you have any properties, Mr. Witness? cralawlibrary
A: None, sir."40 (Emphasis supplied.)
Meanwhile, respondent Francisco asserts that petitioner possessed the capacity to give support to her
twin daughters as she has gainful employment in the USA. He even went as far as to state that
petitioner's income abroad, when converted to Philippine peso, was much higher than that received by
a trial court judge here in the Philippines. In addition, he claims that as she qualified for the federal
parent loan program, she could very well support the college studies of her daughters.
We are unconvinced. Respondent Francisco's assertion that petitioner had the means to support her
daughters' education is belied by the fact that petitioner was even forced by her financial status in the
USA to secure the loan from the federal government. If petitioner were really making enough money
abroad, she certainly would not have felt the need to apply for said loan. The fact that petitioner was
compelled to take out a loan is enough indication that she did not have enough money to enable her
to send her daughters to college by herself. Moreover, even Rica and Rina themselves were forced by
the circumstances they found themselves in to secure loans under their names so as not to delay their
entrance to college.
There being prima facie evidence showing that petitioner and respondent Federico are the parents of
Rica and Rina, petitioner and respondent Federico are primarily charged to support their children's
college education. In view however of their incapacities, the obligation to furnish said support should
be borne by respondent Francisco. Under Article 199 of the Family Code, respondent Francisco, as the
next immediate relative of Rica and Rina, is tasked to give support to his granddaughters in default of
their parents. It bears stressing that respondent Francisco is the majority stockholder and Chairman of
the Board of Directors of Citadel Commercial, Incorporated, which owns and manages twelve gasoline
stations, substantial real estate, and is engaged in shipping, brokerage and freight forwarding. He is
also the majority stockholder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Citadel Shipping which does
business with Hyundai of Korea. Apart from these, he also owns the Citadel Corporation which, in turn,
owns real properties in different parts of the country. He is likewise the Chairman of the Board of
Directors of Isla Communication Co. and he owns shares of stocks of Citadel Holdings. In addition, he
owns real properties here and abroad.41 It having been established that respondent Francisco has the
financial means to support his granddaughters' education, he, in lieu of petitioner and respondent
Federico, should be held liable for support pendente lite.
Anent respondent Francisco and Federico's claim that they have the option under the law as to how
they could perform their obligation to support Rica and Rina, respondent Francisco insists that Rica
and Rina should.
move here to the Philippines to study in any of the local universities. After all, the quality of education
here, according to him, is at par with that offered in the USA. The applicable provision of the Family
Code on this subject provides:
Art. 204. The person obliged to give support shall have the option to fulfill the obligation either by
paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in the family dwelling the person who has
a right to receive support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of in case there is a moral or legal
obstacle thereto.
Under the abovecited provision, the obligor is given the choice as to how he could dispense his
obligation to give support. Thus, he may give the determined amount of support to the claimant or he
may allow the latter to stay in the family dwelling. The second option cannot be availed of in case
there are circumstances, legal or moral, which should be considered.
In this case, this Court believes that respondent Francisco could not avail himself of the second option.
From the records, we gleaned that prior to the commencement of this action, the relationship between
respondent Francisco, on one hand, and petitioner and her twin daughters, on the other, was indeed
quite pleasant. The correspondences exchanged among them expressed profound feelings of
thoughtfulness and concern for one another's well-being. The photographs presented by petitioner as
part of her exhibits presented a seemingly typical family celebrating kinship. All of these, however, are
now things of the past. With the filing of this case, and the allegations hurled at one another by the
parties, the relationships among the parties had certainly been affected. Particularly difficult for Rica
and Rina must be the fact that those who they had considered and claimed as family denied having
any familial relationship with them. Given all these, we could not see Rica and Rina moving back here
in the Philippines in the company of those who have disowned them.
Finally, as to the amount of support pendente lite, we take our bearings from the provision of the law
mandating the amount of support to be proportionate to the resources or means of the giver and to
the necessities of the recipient.42 Guided by this principle, we hold respondent Francisco liable for half
of the amount of school expenses incurred by Rica and Rina as support pendente lite. As established
by petitioner, respondent Francisco has the financial resources to pay this amount given his various
business endeavors.
Considering, however, that the twin sisters may have already been done with their education by the
time of the promulgation of this decision, we deem it proper to award support pendente lite in
arrears43 to be computed from the time they entered college until they had finished their respective
studies.
The issue of the applicability of Article 15 of the Civil Code on petitioner and her twin daughters raised
by respondent Francisco is best left for the resolution of the trial court. After all, in case it would be
resolved that Rica and Rina are not entitled to support pendente lite, the court shall then order the
return of the amounts already paid with legal interest from the dates of actual payment.44
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 20 March 1996 and Resolution dated 16 May 1996 affirming the Order dated 12
September 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 149, Makati, fixing the amount of support
pendente lite to P5,000.00 for Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel, are hereby MODIFIED in that
respondent Francisco Delgado is hereby held liable for support pendente lite in the amount to be
determined by the trial court pursuant to this Decision. Let the records of this case be remanded to
the trial court for the determination of the proper amount of support pendente lite for Rebecca Angela
and Regina Isabel as well as the arrearages due them in accordance with this Decision within ten (10)
days from receipt hereof. Concomitantly, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the
main case and the immediate resolution of the same with deliberate dispatch. The RTC Judge, Branch
149, Makati, is further directed to submit a report of his compliance with the directive regarding the
support pendente lite within ten (10) days from compliance thereof.
SO ORDERED.
