G.R. No. 47018 , October 11, 1941
Pio Pestaño, Petitioner, vs. Honorable Alejo Labrador, Judge of First Instance of Laguna, and Josefina Lopez, Respondents.

FACTS

The respondent, Josefina Lopez, who is the wife of the petitioner Pio Pestaño, initiated Civil Case No. 7157 in the Court of First Instance of Laguna. In her complaint, she sought an order compelling the petitioner to provide her with a monthly support of fifty pesos (P50), which should be increased to seventy-five pesos (P75) if custody of their three daughters was awarded to her. While this main case was pending, the respondent filed a motion for pendente lite (pending litigation) support. The court required the petitioner to appear and show cause why the motion should not be granted. After hearing the respondent and giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, the court issued an order on December 10, 1938, directing the petitioner to pay a monthly support of thirty pesos (P30) to the respondent, which was later reduced to twenty pesos (P20). The petitioner’s motions for reconsideration were denied. On April 24, 1939, upon the respondent’s motion, the court ordered the petitioner to pay one hundred pesos (P100), representing arrears in support. On May 13, 1939, again upon the respondent’s motion, the court reiterated the order to pay the P100 and required the petitioner to appear personally to explain why he should not be punished for contempt for failing to pay. On June 28, 1939, not finding the petitioner’s explanations satisfactory, the court found him guilty of contempt and ordered his arrest. Instead of appealing this last order, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the orders dated April 24, May 13, and June 28, 1939. The Court of Appeals denied the petition. The petitioner, unsatisfied, appealed to the Supreme Court via the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals and the lower court erred in not setting aside the order for pendente lite support, which compelled the petitioner to pay his wife twenty pesos (P20) monthly.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the lower court did not err in issuing the support order. The petitioner opposed the motion for support on two grounds: (a) he could not afford to pay support outside the conjugal home without neglecting his own needs and those of their three young daughters, whom the respondent had abandoned; and (b) the respondent had been seen in a house of dubious reputation occupied by her brother. The Court found these grounds without merit. Regarding the first ground, the lower court had considered that the petitioner was a practicing attorney and received a monthly salary of P110 from the Register of Deeds of Rizal; therefore, he could not plausibly claim an inability to pay P20 monthly to support his lawful wife. As for the second ground, the mere fact that the respondent was seen in her brother’s house, even if it was of dubious reputation, does not constitute adultery and cannot exempt the husband from his obligation to support his wife. Finally, the Court addressed the petitioner’s claim that he had offered to maintain his wife in the conjugal home, but she refused. The Court reiterated the established doctrine that a husband has no right to compel his wife to submit to a conjugal life that he himself has made impossible. Costs were taxed against the petitioner.