G.R. No. L-5153 December 10, 1951
GLICERIO MANGOMA, petitioner, vs. HON. HIGINIO MACADAEG, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch X, and CANDELARIA BAUTISTA, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Candelaria Bautista filed an action against her husband, petitioner Glicerio Mangoma, for separation of property and dissolution of their conjugal partnership. During the pendency of the case, she filed a motion for support pendente lite for herself and their daughter Leticia, alleging that petitioner contracted a second marriage, abandoned them, and refused support despite having considerable property and a monthly net income of at least P5,000. Petitioner opposed the motion, contending that respondent had committed adultery by living with an American soldier and another man, thereby forfeiting her right to support. He also claimed that their daughter Leticia should be under his custody, that he had minimal income as a real estate broker, and that his businesses had failed due to cases filed by respondent. The respondent judge commissioned a deputy clerk to receive evidence on the motion. After several hearings where respondent presented her evidence, but before petitioner could fully present his evidence in support of his defenses, the judge issued an order dated September 28, 1951, granting the motion and ordering petitioner to provide support pendente lite of P750 per month retroactive to January 15, 1951. Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari to annul that order.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order for support pendente lite without first giving petitioner a full opportunity to present his evidence in support of his special defenses, particularly the allegation of adultery by the wife.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the respondent judge. Applying the precedent in Sanchez vs. Zulueta, the Court held that adultery on the part of the wife is a valid defense against an action for support. Therefore, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to present prima facie evidence to support this defense before a ruling on the provisional support is made. The Court found that while hearings were held, there was no showing that petitioner deliberately employed dilatory tactics to justify cutting short the presentation of his evidence. The serious nature of the defense warranted that petitioner be heard. The case was remanded to the lower court for the immediate reception of petitioner’s evidence on his opposition to the motion for support pendente lite.