GR L 2942; (December, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2942 December 29, 1949
SILVESTRA COQUIA and LUIS CARANDANG, petitioners, vs. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, and GASPARA, FRANCISCA, DIONISIO, ALFREDO, and SALVADOR, all surnamed COQUIA, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, claiming to be the acknowledged natural children and sole heirs of the deceased Alfredo Coquia, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Leyte against petitioners Silvestra Coquia (sister of Alfredo) and her husband Luis Carandang to recover ownership and possession of four parcels of land. Petitioners denied that respondents were acknowledged natural children of Alfredo. Pending trial, respondents filed a petition for alimony pendente lite, which the trial court granted, ordering petitioners to pay a monthly allowance. The court justified this based on respondents’ alleged legal and equitable rights in the property and their destitute situation, contrasted with petitioners’ possession of considerable real properties. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and a writ of execution was issued for unpaid alimony.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting alimony pendente lite in an action for recovery of ownership and possession of real property.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and set aside the trial court’s orders. Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, which authorizes alimony pendente lite, applies only in “the proper action” for support, not in an action for recovery of real property. The mere assertion of a legal or equitable right in the property does not justify compelling defendants to support plaintiffs during the litigation. Furthermore, under Article 143 of the Civil Code, petitioners (sister and brother-in-law of the deceased) are not among the persons obligated to support the alleged natural children of Alfredo Coquia. Only parents and acknowledged natural children, among others, have that mutual obligation. The Court cited Yangco vs. Rohde, which held that alimony cannot be granted when the status giving rise to the support obligation (like marriage or acknowledgment) is specifically denied in the pleadings.
AI Generated by Armztrong.