GR L 28147; (February, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28147 February 29, 1972
AMANDA DE LA PAZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO DE GUZMAN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Amanda de la Paz filed an action for support against Mario de Guzman before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, asserting she was legally married to him. The lower court, through Judge Lourdes P. San Diego, granted her prayer for alimony pendente lite, ordering de Guzman to pay P100.00 monthly. De Guzman failed to comply, leading to an order of execution. His motion to stay execution was denied. Despite the lower court’s clear orders, de Guzman persisted in his refusal and appealed directly to the Supreme Court on May 3, 1967, ostensibly raising pure questions of law.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should affirm the lower court’s orders granting alimony pendente lite and denying a stay of execution, given that the appeal, while framed as raising legal questions, is fundamentally factual in nature.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s orders. The appeal is devoid of merit. Appellant de Guzman principally invoked the doctrine from Yangco v. Rohde, which held that alimony pendente lite cannot be granted when the marital status itself is in issue and not yet proven. However, this precedent is inapplicable. The lower court’s order expressly stated that the prayer for alimony was “well supported by the documentary annexes.” This signifies the trial court had already made a preliminary evaluation and found sufficient basis in the evidence to conclude a probable existence of the marital relation, justifying interim support. The Yangco ruling applies only where no such preliminary evidence exists.
Moreover, the errors assigned by appellant are factual, not legal. He essentially challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the lower court based its grant of support. Such an attack involves an appraisal of facts, which is primarily the domain of the trial court. Under the governing procedural law ( Republic Act No. 5440 ), appeals involving only questions of law go to the Supreme Court, but those involving questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law belong to the Court of Appeals. By directly appealing to the Supreme Court on a matter requiring factual re-examination, appellant chose the wrong forum. The Supreme Court’s appellate function is limited to reviewing errors of law, and it found a rational basis for the trial court’s factual conclusion. Thus, the orders from July 14, 1965, to March 29, 1967, are affirmed.