GR 35787; (September, 1932) (Digest)
G.R. No. 35787 ; September 12, 1932
IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUGENE ARTHUR PERKINS, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The spouses Idonah Slade Perkins and Eugene Arthur Perkins were married in Manila in 1914. Idonah filed a suit for separate maintenance. The Court of First Instance of Manila issued an order granting certain amounts for maintenance and litigation expenses. The husband appealed this order. The wife moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory (non-appealable), citing Mendoza vs. Parungao. The husband contended the wife was estopped from raising this objection because she allowed the appeal process to proceed substantially before challenging it.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that the order for maintenance is merely interlocutory.
RULING
No, the appeal was not dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the appellee (wife) waived her objection to the appeal by her conduct in allowing the bill of exceptions to be approved and the briefs to be filed without timely objection, thereby estopping her from raising the issue belatedly. The Court then proceeded to rule on the merits. It found that under Articles 142 and 148 of the Civil Code, support covers necessities like food, shelter, clothing, and medical attendance according to the family’s social standing, and is enforceable only from the date of filing the complaint. The trial court’s award included some items not allowable under these rules (e.g., money loaned to the wife) and covered periods both before and after the suit was filed. As the record was insufficient to determine the correct allowable amount, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the Court’s opinion.
AI Generated by Armztrong.