GR L 12271; (May, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12271; May 31, 1949
BENIGNO DEL RIO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CARLO PALANCA TANGUINLAY, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Benigno del Rio filed a suit to recover money he allegedly advanced from December 1942 to February 1945 for the support of Carlo Palanca Tanguinlay’s five minor natural children. The advances were itemized in a statement signed by the children’s mother, Maria Cuartero Gomez, as their guardian. The action was based on Article 1894 of the Civil Code, which allows a stranger who furnishes support without the knowledge of the obligated person to recover it, unless it was given out of charity without intent to claim reimbursement. It was established that the defendant was under a court-approved agreement to pay a monthly allowance of P1,500 for the children’s support, which he complied with and even exceeded by providing extra cash and goods. The plaintiff was aware of this arrangement. Furthermore, the plaintiff had informed the defendant of the advances and requested payment, indicating the defendant’s knowledge and apparent disapproval.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff, Benigno del Rio, is entitled to recover the money he advanced for the support of the defendant’s children under Article 1894 of the Civil Code.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s claim. To recover under Article 1894, three requisites must be proven: (1) support was furnished to a dependent of a person obligated to give support who failed to do so; (2) the support was supplied by a stranger; and (3) it was given without the knowledge of the obligated person. Here, the defendant did not fail to provide support, as he was complying with a court-ordered allowance deemed sufficient. The plaintiff made the advances with the defendant’s knowledge and despite the defendant’s apparent disapproval, as shown by the plaintiff’s own correspondence demanding payment. Therefore, the third requisite was lacking. The plaintiff’s proper remedy was against the children’s mother, Maria Cuartero Gomez, to whom he made the loans, or to seek a court increase in the allowance if deemed insufficient. The Court found it unnecessary to discuss the second requisite (whether the plaintiff was a stranger), noting only his subsequent marriage to one of the children.
AI Generated by Armztrong.