G.R. No. L-14758. March 30, 1962.
LAUREANO GARCIA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and SIMEON GARCIA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Laureano Garcia, a minor, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cavite seeking acknowledgment as the natural child of respondent Simeon Garcia. On December 15, 1956, the trial court rendered judgment in his favor. Simeon Garcia appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. While that appeal was pending, Laureano, through his guardian, instituted a separate action for support in the same Cavite court, which granted his plea for support pendente lite in the amount of P100.00 monthly.
Respondent Simeon Garcia challenged this support order via a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. The appellate court granted Simeon’s petition, declaring the lower court’s support order null and void. It reasoned that the order was issued without jurisdiction because the paternity relationship, established by the trial court’s decision, had not yet been affirmed by a final judgment on appeal. Laureano’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether a minor, whose acknowledgment as a natural child has been decreed by a trial court but is pending appeal, is entitled to an order for support pendente lite.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the trial court’s order granting support pendente lite. The Court held that while the legal right to support is vested in acknowledged natural children, and the decision ordering acknowledgment was not yet final, the trial court acted within its sound discretion in granting temporary support.
The legal logic is that support pendente lite is a provisional remedy intended to address immediate necessity. It does not require a final and executory judgment establishing filiation. A prima facie showing of the right to support is sufficient. Here, the trial court’s decision, though on appeal, constituted at least prima facie evidence of the child’s right. To refuse support during the appeal’s pendency, especially where the child is in need, would be a travesty of justice. The Court cited precedents indicating that only prima facie evidence of a family relation is necessary for such interim relief and that the confirmation of an order of recognition relates back to the date of the original decision. Therefore, the Cavite court had jurisdiction and discretion to issue the support order pending the outcome of the appeal on the main action for acknowledgment. Costs were imposed on respondent Simeon Garcia.