GR L 17315; (July, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-17315 July 31, 1965
OLYMPIA BALTAZAR, in behalf of her minor son, ARMENIO SERFINO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SERGIO SERFINO, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Olympia Baltazar, a widow, filed an action on behalf of her minor son, Armenio Serfino, born on December 19, 1943, against Sergio Serfino, a married man and the child’s father, for support. The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental ordered Sergio to pay P15.00 monthly as support from July 1960. The appellants appealed, seeking: (1) an increase of the support to P50.00 monthly; (2) payment retroactive to Armenio’s birth, except for the period from May 1957 to April 1959 when Armenio lived with his father; and (3) an award of P1,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The lower court based the P15.00 award on appellee’s estimated average annual income of P1,085.00 from his rice mill and a ten-hectare land, considering he also supported a wife and three legitimate children. However, the record showed appellee had additional income from a tailoring shop with gross receipts of P573.50 in 1958, and he owned a house and lot, eliminating rental expenses.
ISSUE
1. Whether the amount of monthly support awarded should be increased.
2. From what date the payment of support should commence.
3. Whether attorney’s fees should be awarded.
RULING
1. On the amount of support: The Supreme Court increased the monthly support from P15.00 to P25.00. Applying Article 296 of the Civil Code, which states that support shall be in proportion to the resources of the giver and the needs of the recipient, the Court considered appellee’s additional income from the tailoring shop and his ownership of a house and lot, which were not fully accounted for by the lower court.
2. On the commencement of payment: The Court ruled that payment should begin from June 1959, not from the child’s birth. Under Article 298 of the Civil Code, the obligation is demandable from the time the recipient needs it but is payable only from the date of extrajudicial demand. The extrajudicial demand in this case was made in June 1959.
3. On attorney’s fees: The Court awarded attorney’s fees of P300.00. Citing Mercado v. Ostrand and Fanlo de Peyer v. Peyer, and paragraph 6, Article 2208 of the Civil Code, the Court held that when the duty to support is admitted but not complied with despite demands, necessitating judicial action, the obligor must pay reasonable attorney’s fees. The sum of P300.00 was deemed reasonable.
The appealed judgment was modified accordingly.