G.R. No. L-45616; May 16, 1939
FELICIANO SANCHEZ, petitioner-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO ZULUETA, Judge of First Instance of Cavite, JOSEFA DIEGO and MARIANO SANCHEZ, assisted by his mother, JOSEFA DIEGO, as guardian ad litem, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

In a civil case for support, the plaintiffs (Josefa Diego and Mario Sanchez) alleged they were the wife and legitimate child, respectively, of the defendant (Feliciano Sanchez) and sought a monthly allowance. The defendant, in his special defense, alleged that Josefa Diego abandoned the conjugal home in 1930 due to her adultery with Macario Sanchez, and that Mario Sanchez was the fruit of this adulterous relationship, not his legitimate child. When the plaintiffs applied for a pendente lite (provisional) support allowance, the defendant opposed the application and asked the trial court for an opportunity to present evidence to substantiate his defense of adultery and non-paternity. The trial court denied his request to present evidence and granted the provisional support order. The defendant filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which was denied. He then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in granting the application for provisional support pendente lite without first allowing the defendant to present evidence in support of his defense that the wife committed adultery and the child is not his legitimate offspring.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that adultery on the part of the wife is a valid defense against an action for support. Consequently, proving that the child is the fruit of such adultery is also a defense, as it negates the child’s right to support as a legitimate child. Since this defense must be established and not merely alleged, it was error for the trial court to deny the defendant’s request for an opportunity to present evidence. While the resolution on provisional support is merely temporary, the court must still ascertain, based on prima facie evidence, the merits of the opposition. The defendant’s failure to submit affidavits with his opposition did not justify ignoring his plea to present other potentially weightier evidence. The case was remanded with the order that the petitioner be given an opportunity to present evidence in support of his defense against the application for support pendente lite.