Article 199 - Family Code and Case: Borbon Vs. Advincula, G.R. No. L-19065

 

Article 199

          Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability shall devolve upon the following persons in the order herein provided:

          1. The spouse;

          2. The descendants in the nearest degree;

          3. The ascendants in the nearest degree; and

          4. The brothers and sisters.

This is an enumeration of the order of liability in matters of support. Manresa reasoned out by saying that, since the obligation to support certain relatives rests primarily upon the requirements of human nature and the ties created by family relations, it is only logical that the obligation should first be imposed upon those who are closely related to the recipient and it is only in default of those nearer in degree of relationship that those more remote are called upon to discharge the obligation. (1 Manresa 674).

          The action for support may be brought against any of those obliged to give it, but the plaintiff must show that those who are called upon to furnish the support before the defendant are without means to give such support. If the defendant can prove that another person who is ahead of him in the order of liability can give the support, the obligation must fall upon the latter. Thus, a rich brother will not be obliged to give support if he proves that the father has enough means to give for support. (1 Manresa 679).

MANUELA ADVINCULA, represented by her guardian-ad-litem, Pura Borbon, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANUEL ADVINCULA, defendant-appellee.

G.R. No. L-19065, January 31, 1964

Facts:

          Sometime in 1956, Manuela Advincula filed Civil Case No. 3553, CFI of Iloilo, against Manuel Advincula, for acknowledge merit and support. On motion of both parties, said case was dismissed. On January 16, 1961, Manuela Advincula filed the complaint under consideration against the same Manuela Advincula, also acknowledgment and support, Civil Case No. 5659, same court. Instead of filing his answer, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3553 barred the filing of the second complaint. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that as the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3553, was without reservation, the same was with prejudice.

Issue:

          Whether the dismissal of the former was with prejudice.

Held:

          No. In both Civil Cases Nos. 3553 and 5659, the action of the plaintiff was for acknowledgment and support. Judgment for support does not become final. The right to support is of such nature that its allowance is essentially provisional; for during the entire period that needy party is entitled to support, his or her alimony may be modified or altered, in accordance with his increase or decreased needs, and with the means of the giver. It cannot be regarded as subject to final determination.

          Also appearing that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3553, was not an adjudication upon the merits, as heretofore shown, the right of herein plaintiff-appellant to reiterate her suit for support and acknowledgment is available, as her needs arise. Once the needs of plaintiff arise, she has the right to bring the action for support, for it is only then that her cause of action accrues. The right to ask support is demandable from the date in which plaintiff was in need of the same (Marcelo v. Estacio, 70 Phil. 215).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 91 - Family Code and Case: Nobleza Vs. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038

Article 91           Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.           The law provides for two kinds of properties that shall form part of the absolute community of properties; namely, (1) All properties owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage;           (2) All properties acquired after the celebration of the marriage.           The law provides, however, that even if the parties are governed by the absolute community, they may agree that some properties be exempted form its coverage. If that is so, then, the ante-nuptial agreement embodied in their law further provides that there are proper...
Read more

Article 20 Case Digest: Sps. Quisumbing Vs. Meralco

SPOUSES ANTONIO AND LORNA QUISUMBING, PETITIONER VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), RESPONDENT G.R. NO. 142943, APRIL 3, 2002 FACTS:     On March 3, 1995, the respondents took a routine check of all single phased meters in Green Meadows avenue. The house owned by the petitioners was one of the houses that was inspected. The petitioners was not around at the of the inspection, the petitioners asked permission from the petitioners through their secretary. The secretary witnessed the inspection. Upon inspection, the respondents discovered that the terminal seal of the meter was missing, the meter cover seal was deformed, the meter dials of the meter was mis-aligned and there were scratches on the meter base plate. This was a clear sign that the meter has been tampered. The petitioners denied liability for the tampering. The respondent then, temporarily disconnected the electric services of the petitioners until they pay the amount of P178,875.01 representing the differential ...
Read more

Article 39, Case Digest - Family Code: Wiegel vs. Judge Sempio-Diy

  LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY (as presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and KARL HEINZ WIEGEL, respondents. G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986 PARAS, J.: Facts:           This a petition for certiorari for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the petitioner, Lilia Wiegel and respondent, Karl Heinz Wiegel, by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City.           Herein respondent claims that his marriage to the petitioner is void because of an existing marriage prior to their marriage. The petitioner contends that her first marriage was void because they forced to enter in the said marriage. Moreover, the petitioner assails that her first husband had a prior existing marriage, therefore, making the marriage void.           Respondent jud...
Read more