G.R. No. 26231, August 7, 1926
LORENZO MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. GORGONIA PARUNGAO, et al., respondents.

DOCTRINE: An interlocutory order granting support pendente lite in an action for liquidation of conjugal partnership property is not a final and executory judgment. A writ of execution cannot be issued to enforce such an interlocutory order; disobedience thereto may only be punished as contempt after proper proceedings.

FACTS

1. On August 7, 1925, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Nueva Ecija declared the marriage between Gorgonia Paruñgao and Lorenzo Mendoza null and void due to the reappearance of Paruñgao’s first husband, presumed dead. This judgment was on appeal.
2. In October 1925, Paruñgao’s first husband died.
3. On September 14, 1925, while the annulment case was on appeal, Paruñgao filed a separate civil action (Case No. 3962) against Mendoza for liquidation of conjugal partnership property and sought P300 as alimony pendente lite.
4. On November 27, 1925, the CFI issued an order directing Mendoza to pay Paruñgao P50 monthly as support during the pendency of the liquidation case.
5. On January 20, 1926, and again on March 23, 1926, the CFI issued orders for the execution of the November 27, 1925 support order. A writ of execution was issued on March 24, 1926, to collect P325 (accumulated monthly support).
6. For failure to comply, the CFI (through Vacation Judge Manuel V. Moran) issued an order on June 8, 1926, requiring Mendoza and the sheriffs to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt.
7. On July 23, 1926, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment annulling the marriage between Paruñgao and Mendoza.
8. Mendoza filed this petition for certiorari, seeking to annul the writ of execution and related proceedings, arguing that the CFI acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing writs of execution to enforce its interlocutory order granting monthly support pendente lite in an action for liquidation of conjugal partnership property.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari.

1. Right to Support Extinguished upon Annulment of Marriage: The right to spousal support arises from the matrimonial bond and the obligation of mutual support. Once a marriage is declared null and void, that right ceases. Since the marriage of Paruñgao and Mendoza was annulled on August 7, 1925, Paruñgao was no longer entitled to spousal support when she filed her complaint for liquidation on September 14, 1925.

2. Nature of the Order for Monthly Payments: The Court construed the CFI’s order for monthly payments as a potential advance on Paruñgao’s share of the conjugal partnership property, pending liquidation. However, such an order is interlocutory and not a final judgment.

3. Interlocutory Orders are Not Enforceable by Execution: Under Section 443 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure), a writ of execution can only issue to enforce a final judgment. An interlocutory order, like the one granting advance payments, cannot be enforced by execution. Disobedience to such an order may be punished as contempt only after proper proceedings, but not via a writ of execution.

4. Excess of Jurisdiction: The CFI’s issuance of the writs of execution on January 20 and March 23, 1926, and the show-cause order for contempt based on non-compliance with those writs, constituted an act in excess of jurisdiction. Certiorari is the proper remedy to correct such excess.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: The petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The writ of execution dated March 24, 1926, and all subsequent proceedings based thereon are declared NULL and VOID. The preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court is made PERMANENT. Costs against the respondents.