View full case

MA. BELEN B. MANGONON v. VS. CA

FACTS:

Petitioner Ma. Belen B. Mangonon filed a Petition for Declaration of Legitimacy and Support on behalf of her minor children, Rica and Rina, after her civil marriage with respondent Federico Delgado was annulled. Petitioner claimed that Rica and Rina were born within seven months from the date of the annulment, making them legitimate children of respondent Federico. Petitioner sought support for Rica and Rina's college education and general support from respondent Federico or in his default, from respondent Francisco. Respondent Francisco argued that the legitimacy of Rica and Rina needs to be established before support can be claimed and that the responsibility for support should fall on petitioner and her second husband.

Petitioner filed a motion to declare respondent Federico in default, but Federico filed a motion to lift the order of default, stating that he was not properly served with the summons and petition. The trial court lifted the order of default and admitted Federico's answer. Petitioner filed a motion for support pendente lite for their twin daughters' education, which was opposed by respondent Francisco. The trial court ordered respondents to provide a monthly support of P5,000.00 each for the education of the daughters.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision. Petitioner then brought the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the amount of support granted was insufficient and that the obligation should fall on respondent Francisco as the grandfather. Respondent Francisco argued that the obligation should be on the parents, and petitioner herself had access to financial assistance for education expenses.

Petitioner Avelina filed a petition for support against respondent Federico on behalf of her twin daughters, Rica and Rina. Petitioner and her daughters are US citizens residing in the Philippines. Petitioner claimed that Federico is the biological father of her daughters and therefore has an obligation to provide support. Respondent Federico denied paternity and argued that even if he is the father, he can fulfill the obligation by paying support or providing a dwelling. He further argued that since petitioner and her daughters are US citizens, they cannot invoke the Family Code on support. Respondent Federico agreed with the lower court's ruling that parents should primarily bear the burden of providing support. The court found the petition to be meritorious.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner was able to establish the filiation of her twin daughters to the respondents and their entitlement to support pendente lite.

  2. Who should be made liable for the grant of support pendente lite to the twin daughters.

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the findings of fact of the trial court.

  4. Whether respondent Federico has the financial capacity to provide support to his daughters.

  5. Whether petitioner has the financial capacity to provide support to her daughters.

  6. Whether respondent Francisco has the obligation to provide support to his granddaughters.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the petitioner was able to establish the filiation of her twin daughters to the respondents and their entitlement to support pendente lite. The trial court found that the respondents' actuations showed beyond doubt that the twins are the children of Federico. The court considered the constant communication between the twins and their grandfather, the letters written by the grandfather addressing the twins as Rica and Rina Delgado, and the financial help extended by the grandfather.

  2. The liability to provide support devolves upon those more closely related to the recipient, according to the Family Code. However, the more remote relatives may be held responsible if those who are primarily called upon to provide support do not have the means to do so. In this case, the trial court and the Court of Appeals held respondent Federico liable to provide monthly support pendente lite. However, the Supreme Court is unconvinced as to the veracity of the income imputed to Federico. Thus, the issue of who should be made liable for the grant of support pendente lite to the twin daughters remains unresolved.

  3. The Court finds that the case falls within the seventh and eleventh exceptions to the rule on the more stringent application of findings of fact of the trial court. The trial court's findings were contrary to respondent Francisco's testimony and there were relevant facts overlooked by the Court of Appeals.

  4. The Court found that respondent Federico did not have evidence to support his assertions regarding his employment and earnings. The trial court's full credence to his testimony and allegations was not justified.

  5. The Court found that petitioner's financial status in the USA did not indicate that she had the means to support her daughters' education. Her need to secure a loan from the federal government showed that she did not have enough money to send her daughters to college on her own.

  6. The Court held that respondent Francisco, as the next immediate relative of Rica and Rina, has the obligation to provide support to his granddaughters in default of their parents.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Support pendente lite is a provisional relief that may be granted by the court prior to the rendition of judgment or final order. Its purpose is to provide financial support to the dependent party while the case is pending.

  • The filiation of children and their entitlement to support can be established by prima facie proof, such as evidence of communication and support between the alleged parents and the children.

  • The liability to provide support devolves on those more closely related to the recipient, but the more remote relatives may be held responsible if the primary obligors do not have the means to provide support.

  • The Court generally adopts the findings of fact of the appellate and lower courts, but there are recognized exceptions to this rule.

  • The burden of proving one's financial capacity lies on the party asserting it.

  • The obligation to provide support to children falls primarily on the parents, but in default of the parents, the obligation falls on the next immediate relative.

  • The person obliged to give support has the option to fulfill the obligation either by paying the fixed allowance or by receiving and maintaining the person who has a right to receive support in the family dwelling, unless there is a moral or legal obstacle (Art. 204, Family Code).

  • The amount of support should be proportionate to the resources or means of the giver and the necessities of the recipient (unstated provision).