G.R. No. L-59906 October 23, 1982
Buenaventura San Juan, petitioner, vs. Hon. Manuel E. Valenzuela, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal and Dorotea Mejia, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Buenaventura San Juan and respondent Dorotea Mejia were married in 1973. However, their marriage was declared null and void on September 16, 1981, by the Court of First Instance of Rizal due to petitioner’s prior subsisting marriage to another woman. Subsequently, on February 25, 1981, Mejia filed an action for support for herself and their two minor children. The respondent judge granted her motion for support pendente lite, ordering San Juan to pay P2,500 monthly starting January 1982. San Juan moved for reconsideration, arguing the amount was disproportionate to his means, that he had no obligation to support Mejia due to the null marriage, and that no evidence of his resources was presented. His motion was denied, prompting this certiorari petition.
During the pendency of this petition, San Juan filed a manifestation in the trial court dated June 17, 1982, proposing to settle his accrued support arrears of P15,000 (for January to June 1982) in three installments and seeking a reduction of the monthly support to P1,000, claiming the P2,500 was now beyond his means. The trial court approved his payment scheme for the arrears. However, his request for reduction remained unacted upon as the respondent judge had left abroad.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari assailing the order for support pendente lite has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

Yes, the petition is moot and academic. The Court dismissed the petition on this ground. Petitioner’s voluntary act of proposing a scheme to pay the accrued support arrears, which the trial court approved, effectively removed the live controversy regarding his compliance with the support order. His willingness to pay under the court-approved plan demonstrated acquiescence to the underlying obligation, rendering the original challenge to the order’s validity academic.
Regarding the ancillary issue on the propriety of the support amount, the Court held that the factual question of whether P2,500 monthly is beyond petitioner’s means is not for certiorari but for the trial court’s determination in a proper hearing. An order for support pendente lite is interlocutory and not final; it can be modified based on changing circumstances affecting the obligor’s ability to pay, as provided under Article 297 of the Civil Code. Thus, the remedy for petitioner is to pursue his pending motion for reduction in the lower court upon the judge’s return, not a special civil action for certiorari.