GR 54097; (September, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-54097 September 30, 1981
Romeo N. Gumba, petitioner, vs. Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Camarines Sur and the Cities of Naga and Iriga and Haide B. Vista-Gumba, respondents.
FACTS
The spouses Romeo Gumba and Haide Vista, both lawyers, married in 1968. Romeo abandoned Haide shortly after, cohabiting with another woman. In 1972, Haide sued for support. The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur, in a 1974 decision, ordered Romeo to pay monthly child support of P75, with no spousal support awarded as Haide was employed. This judgment became final. The couple briefly reconciled in late 1974, but Romeo abandoned Haide again in April 1978, refusing support.
In August 1978, Haide filed a new complaint in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC). Her action sought a revival of the 1974 judgment and, as a new cause of action, an increase in child support to P950 monthly and an award of spousal support, alleging she was no longer employed. Romeo moved to dismiss, arguing the JDRC lacked jurisdiction as the five-year period for executing the 1974 CFI judgment had not lapsed and modification belonged to the CFI. The JDRC denied his motion.
ISSUE
Whether the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has jurisdiction over Haide’s 1978 complaint for support.
RULING
Yes, the JDRC has jurisdiction. The Court ruled that Haide’s 1978 complaint (Civil Case No. 81) constitutes a new and separate action from the 1974 CFI case (Civil Case No. 7334). It is not merely a revival or execution of the old judgment. The new action is based on a change in circumstances—the alleged inadequacy of the prior child support award and the new necessity for spousal support due to Haide’s unemployment since 1978. Under Republic Act No. 6591 , which created the JDRC, it has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for support. Since the complaint was filed in 1978, well after the JDRC’s organization, it properly fell within its jurisdiction.
The Court clarified that the cause of action for “revival” of the 1974 judgment was unnecessary, as a judgment for support does not become dormant and the five-year rule for execution by motion is inapplicable. The 1974 CFI judgment remains enforceable by the CFI. The two cases are independent; a new judgment from the JDRC would not nullify the old one but would address support obligations accruing from the time of the new judicial demand in 1978. The petition was dismissed, and the JDRC’s orders were upheld.