GR L 31897; (June, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31897 June 30, 1972
LUIS T. RAMOS, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FELISA LAGOS, for herself and in behalf of minors FERNANDO LAGOS and LORRAINE LAGOS, respondents.
FACTS
Felisa Lagos, on behalf of her minor children Fernando and Lorraine, filed a complaint for support and damages against Luis T. Ramos in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. The complaint alleged that Ramos was the father of the children, born in 1963 and 1965 from an illicit relationship, and that he had refused to provide support despite having the means as a municipal mayor. Ramos denied paternity and filed a counterclaim. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of the minors, ordering Ramos to pay monthly support, arrears, and attorney’s fees.
Ramos appealed to the Court of Appeals. While the appeal was pending, the minors moved for support pendente lite. The appellate court granted the motion in a resolution, ordering Ramos to deposit a sum representing one-half of the accrued support under the appealed decision. Ramos’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to file this original action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in granting support pendente lite to the minor children during the pendency of Ramos’s appeal from the trial court’s decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner’s reliance on Yangco vs. Rohde and Francisco vs. Zandueta was misplaced, as those cases involved situations where support was sought based merely on the bare allegations of a complaint, which were disputed. In contrast, the present case had already proceeded to trial where evidence of paternity and the obligation to support was presented and found sufficient by the trial court, even if its decision was on appeal.
The Court emphasized that for provisional support, only prima facie evidence of the family relationship is necessary, not a final judgment establishing paternity. The trial court’s decision, though appealed, constituted prima facie evidence of Ramos’s paternity and obligation to support the illegitimate children. The amount ordered was merely one-half of the accrued support under the trial court’s judgment, and the prolonged litigation and the minors’ need, given their school age, justified the grant of interim relief. The appellate court acted within its discretion to prevent a travesty of justice by ensuring the children’s sustenance during the appeal. The petition was dismissed.