GR 43794; (August, 1935) (Digest)
G.R. No. 43794 ; August 9, 1935
LUIS FRANCISCO, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and EUGENIO LEOPOLDO FRANCISCO, represented by his natural mother and curator ad litem, ROSARIO GOMEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Eugenio Leopoldo Francisco, a minor, through his mother and guardian ad litem, filed an action for support against petitioner Luis Francisco in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging he is the acknowledged natural son of the petitioner. The petitioner, as defendant, filed an answer with a general denial and a special defense, specifically denying paternity, stating he never acknowledged the child, was not present at the baptism, and was married at the time of the child’s alleged birth. Despite this denial, the respondent judge issued an order granting the minor a monthly support of P30 pendente lite. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing the order was issued in excess of jurisdiction because the child’s civil status was in issue, and recovery of any advanced support would be impossible if paternity were disproven. The motion was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether a court may grant support pendente lite when the civil status from which the right to support is derived (in this case, filiation) is specifically denied and placed in issue by the pleadings.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and declared the order for support pendente lite null and void. The Court, applying the doctrine established in Yangco vs. Rohde, held that when the civil status that is the basis for a claim of support (such as marriage or, as here, filiation) is specifically denied and is the very fact in issue, the court cannot grant support pendente lite. The right to support is derived from an established civil status or juridical relation. Where that status is contested and not yet proven, there is no legal basis to order provisional support. The Court emphasized that a mere allegation of status cannot be confounded with an established right recognized by a final judgment. The dispute over whether the petitioner’s attorney agreed to the support was deemed immaterial, as parties cannot by consent confer jurisdiction upon a court to grant relief where the law, under the circumstances, does not authorize it.
AI Generated by Armztrong.