G.R. No. L-6706 March 29, 1953
ALFREDO JAVIER, petitioner, vs. HON. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cavite; SALUD R. ARCA and ALFREDO JAVIER, JR., respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 5150 for alimony, the respondent judge ordered Alfredo Javier to provide a monthly allowance of P60 to his wife Salud R. Arca and their son Alfredo Javier, Jr. Alfredo Javier filed a notice of appeal. Subsequently, Salud R. Arca and Alfredo Javier, Jr. filed a motion for “support pendente lite” pending appeal. On May 8, 1953, the judge directed Alfredo Javier to pay the monthly pensions despite the pendency of his appeal. Alfredo Javier filed a petition for certiorari challenging this directive on three grounds: (1) the status of Salud R. Arca as his wife is contested; (2) Alfredo Javier, Jr. is over 21 years old and no longer entitled to support; and (3) even if support for education is due, the decision is vague on that point. The factual findings from the support action reveal that Alfredo Javier and Salud R. Arca were married on November 19, 1937, and had a son, Alfredo Javier, Jr., born on December 2, 1931. Alfredo Javier obtained a divorce from Salud R. Arca in Alabama, USA, in 1941, remarried twice thereafter, and was acquitted of a bigamy charge filed by Salud R. Arca due to lack of criminal intent, as he believed in good faith that the divorce had dissolved his first marriage.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the execution of the judgment for support pending appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The Court held that the respondent judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction. The order for execution pending appeal was issued before the record on appeal was submitted, which is within the court’s jurisdiction. On the first ground, the Court found that the married relation and paternity had been established at least prima facie, distinguishing the case from Francisco vs. Zandueta. On the second ground, the Court cited Article 290 of the New Civil Code, which allows support for education beyond the age of majority, and noted that delaying support until the appeal’s termination would unduly hinder the son’s education. On the third ground, the Court addressed the petitioner’s grievance regarding supporting a wife who accused him of bigamy, noting that under Articles 303 and 921 of the New Civil Code, a wife forfeits support only if the accusation is found to be false, and the acquittal here was based on lack of intent, not a finding that the accusation was false. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear error or grievous mistake by the judge. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.