G.R. No. 48283 ; October 28, 1942
JOSEFA MALABANA, petitioner, vs. QUIRICO ABETO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and ROBERTO V. GONZALEZ, respondents.

FACTS

On March 14, 1940, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 56288, ordering respondent Roberto V. Gonzalez to give petitioner Josefa Malabana and her unborn child a monthly support allowance of fifty pesos (P50) retroactive to January 1, 1940. This decision was based on the defendant’s written promise and affidavits (Exhibits A and B) establishing his paternity and unconditional promise of support. The defendant had been declared in default. Respondent Gonzalez paid the monthly allowances until August 15, 1940. The child died on August 20, 1940, after which respondent refused to continue payments. Petitioner filed a motion in the lower court to compel compliance with the decision. On February 4, 1941, the lower court denied the motion, holding that the obligation to pay support ceased with the child’s death. Petitioner seeks review, alleging the order was an improper amendment of a final judgment and that she is entitled to at least half the allowance upon the child’s death.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court acted in excess of jurisdiction by issuing an order that effectively modified a final judgment, and whether petitioner is entitled to continue receiving the support allowance, or a portion thereof, after the death of the child.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that a judgment for support can never become final in the absolute sense, as it is subject to modification based on changing conditions affecting the obligor’s ability to pay and the beneficiary’s needs. The Court found that respondent’s obligation to pay the pension legally rested solely on the child’s right to support. It could not be based on a promise for petitioner’s exclusive benefit, as such a promise would be based on an illicit consideration and unenforceable. The death of the child removed the only valid cause for the support judgment, and the lower court correctly held that the obligation ceased. However, the Court modified the order under review. Since support allowances are payable in advance under Article 148 of the Civil Code, and the heirs of a deceased person entitled to support are not obligated to return amounts received in advance, respondent Gonzalez was in arrears for the unpaid portion of the August 1940 allowance. As a matter of equity, considering the extraordinary expenses from the child’s illness and death, petitioner should be allowed the amount corresponding to the last ten days of August. Respondent Roberto V. Gonzalez was ordered to pay petitioner the sum of P25, with legal interest from September 25, 1940, plus costs.