GR L 4037; (November, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4037 November 29, 1951
TRINIDAD FLORENDO, petitioner-appellee, vs. RUFINA ORGANO, respondent-appellant.
FACTS
The petitioner-appellee (Trinidad Florendo) and the respondent-appellant (Rufina Organo) are spouses who have lived apart since 1909. In a prior action for maintenance and support (Civil Case No. 2853), the Supreme Court, on appeal ( G.R. No. 41438 ), rendered a decision on March 4, 1935, ordering the husband to pay the wife alimony in arrears and future monthly support of P30. This judgment was only partially executed on August 8, 1939, leaving a balance unpaid. Subsequently, the husband filed an action for divorce, which was dismissed for failure to prosecute. In that divorce case, the wife filed a counterclaim on October 9, 1943, seeking payment of the unpaid balance from the 1935 judgment and all subsequent unpaid alimony installments, totaling P3,640. The trial court absolved the husband from the counterclaim, holding it was res judicata and that the proper remedy was not in that proceeding. The wife appealed.
ISSUE
What is the appropriate procedure to enforce the judgment for alimony rendered in Civil Case No. 2853 ( G.R. No. 41438 )?
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. It held that a judgment for alimony does not become dormant or prescribe in its entirety; it remains in force indefinitely until modified or terminated by the court. However, individual installments may prescribe if not collected within ten years from the date they become due. The proper and speedy remedy to collect unpaid alimony installments is a simple motion for execution in the original case. Nevertheless, a counterclaim for the same purpose is also permissible under the liberal rules of procedure, which encourage resolving all related disputes between parties in a single proceeding to avoid multiplicity of suits. The Court further clarified that the prescriptive period for the unpaid installments was interrupted by the judicial demand in the original support case and began to run anew from the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision; thus, the installments claimed in the 1943 counterclaim had not yet prescribed. The case was remanded to the trial court to render judgment on the counterclaim based on the evidence. Costs were assessed against the husband.