You are on page 1of 10

Persons Cases

Use at your own risk.


Tamargo V. CA

PA not retroactively transferred to and vested in the adopting

Rapisura spouses who were at the time

parents, the Rapisura spouses. No retroactive effect may be

in the US had no physical custody over

Retroactivity of parental

given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon

the child Adelberto so as to burden

authority re: vicarious

the adopting parents accruing at a time when adopting parents

them with liability for a tortious act


had no actual or physically custody over the adopted child.

(shooting incident) that they could not

Retroactive affect may only be given where such is essential to

have foreseen nor prevented.

permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the

Following the doctrine of vicarious

adopted child.

liability, no PA could have arisen since

Adelberto was not in fact subject to

Under the above Article 35, parental authority is provisionally

their control at the time the tort was

vested in the adopting parents during the period of trial


custody, i.e., before the issuance of a decree of

Article 35 of the Child and Youth

adoption, precisely because the adopting parents are given

Welfare Code fortifies the conclusion

actual custody of the child during such trial period. In the instant

reached above.

case, the trial custody period either had not yet begun or bad
already been completed at the time of the air rifle shooting; in
any case, actual custody of Adelberto was then with his natural
parents, not the adopting parents.

Lahom V. Sibulo

Retroactivity of rules on

Retroactvity: The Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the

A childless couple adopted

court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the

nephew and brought him up as their

commencement of the action.

own. In 1972, the trial court granted

action to rescind.

the petition for adoption but later

Rules on Action to Rescind Adoption

Lahom filed a petition in Court in

May the subject adoption,

Under the Civil Code:

December 1999 (after March 22,1998

decreed on 05 May 1972,

Art. 192. The adopters may petition the court for the judicial

when R.A. 8552 took effect) because

still be revoked or

rescission of the adoption in any of the following cases:

their adopted son refused to use their

rescinded by an adopter

(1) If the adopted has committed any act constituting a ground

last name. Petitioner insists that the

after the effectivity of R.A.

for disinheriting a descendant; or

governing law should be the civil code

No. 8552? No.

(2) When the adopted has abandoned the home of the adopters

since the petition for adoption was

during minority for at least one year, or, by some other acts, has

granted in 1972.

definitely repudiated the adoption. (41a, P.D. No. 603)

It was months after the effectivity of

5 yr bar rule; Rule 100 of the Rules of Court:

R.A. No. 8552 that herein petitioner

SEC. 5. (2) The adopter must also file the petition to set aside the

filed an action to revoke the decree of

adoption within five (5) years from the time the cause or causes

adoption granted in 1975. By then, the

giving rise to the rescission or revocation of the same took

new law,[22] had already abrogated and


repealed the right of an adopter under

the Civil Code and the Family Code to

Under the Family Code:

rescind a decree of adoption.

Adopter can no longer rescind. He or She may only disinherit

the adoptee for the causes mentioned in Article 919.

Interestingly, even before the passage

of the statute, an action to set aside
the adoption is subject to the fiveyear
bar rule under Rule 100[23] of the Rules
of Court and that the adopter would
lose the right to revoke the adoption
decree after the lapse of that period.
The exercise of the right within a
prescriptive period cannot be

Persons Cases

Use at your own risk.

considered a vested right entitled to

protection. Also, a person has no
vested right in statutory privileges
because it is subject to regulation by
the State.
Concept of vested right

In Republic vs. CA a petition to adopt Jason Condat was filed by

(definition: consequence

Zenaida C. Bobiles on 02 February 1988 when the Child and

of the constitutional

Youth Welfare Code (PD No. 603) allowed an adoption to be

guaranty of due

sought by either spouse or both of them. While the case was on

process that expresses

appeal, the Family Code, mandating joint adoption by the

a present fixed interest is

husband and wife, took effect. Petitioner Republic argued that

protected against arbitrary

the case should be dismissed for having been filed by Mrs.

state action; it includes not

Bobiles alone and without being joined by the husband. The

only enforcement of a

Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the court is determined

demand but also

by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the

exemptions from new

action. The petition to adopt Jason, having been filed with the

obligations created after

court at the time when P.D. No. 603 was still in effect, the right

the right has become

of Mrs. Bobiles to file the petition, without being joined by her


husband, according to the Court had become vested.

In Republic vs. Miller,[21] On 29 July 1988, the couple filed a
petition to formalize Michaels adoption. At the time the action
was commenced, P.D. No. 603 allowed aliens to adopt. After the
decree of adoption and while on appeal before the Court of
Appeals, the FCP took effect disqualifying aliens from adopting
Filipino children. The Republic then prayed for the withdrawal of
the adoption decree. In discarding the argument posed by the
Republic, the Supreme Court ruled that the controversy should
be resolved in the light of the law governing at the time the

petition was filed.


Landingin V.


No. Section 9, par (b) of RA 8552, provides that the

Petitioner failed to submit the written

consent of the biological parent(s) of the child, if known

consent of Amelia Ramos to the

is indispensable for the validity of adoption. The written


WON a petition for

consent of the legal guardian will suffice if the written

adoption be granted

consent of the biological parents cannot be obtained.

without the written

Diwata Landingin, a US citizen of

Filipino parentage filed a petition for

biological mother.

Reason for requirement of consent and notice: to

the adoption of 3 minor children of her

protect the natural parental relationship from

brother. Acdg to her, their mother

unwarranted interference by interlopers, and to insure

went to Italy, re-married there and

the opportunity to safeguard the best interests of the

now has 2 children by her 2nd marriage.

child in the manner of the proposed adoption.

A Social Worker of the DSWD

Meaning of abandonment: neglect and refusal to

recommended the adoption and

perform the filial and legal obligations of love and

narrated that Amelia voluntarily

support. Merely permitting the child to remain for a

consented. However, that social

time undisturbed in the care of others is not such

worker was never presented as

abandonment. To dispense with the requirements of


consent, the abandonment must be shown to have

existed at the time of adoption.

Persons Cases


In Re: Petition for

Use at your own risk.

Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the

Childless sps. Lim were entrusted by a

Adoption of

following cases:

certain Ayuban 2 children whom they

Michelle and

(4) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate

registered to make it appear that they

Michael Jude Lim

son/daughter of the other; or

were the parents. The husband died

(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own

and later the wife married a US cit. So

Cannot singly adopt if

illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, however, That the

the wife availed of the amnesty to


other spouse has signified his/her consent thereto; or

those who simulated the birth of child

(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each

under RA 8552. Michelle and her


husband, Michael and the American

affidavit is not sufficient.

In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one spouse


There are further qualif.

adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of the other, joint

as evidenced by the Affidavits of

parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses.


The use of the word "shall" in the above-quoted

TC: she should have filed the petition

provision means that joint adoption by the husband

jointly with her new husband. Thus,

Consent of American in an

Olario gave their consent

Consent still necessary

although above 18.

and the wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with

the concept of joint parental authority over the child
which is the ideal situation. As the child to be adopted

to adoption cases for the sake of the

is elevated to the level of a legitimate child, it is but

paramount interest and welfare of the

natural to require the spouses to adopt jointly. The rule

child. Also, joint parental authority is

also insures harmony between the spouses.

not necessary anymore since they have

been emancipated having attained the

The Affidavit of Consent does not suffice. An American who

seeks to adopt must meet the qualifications set forth in Section
7 of RA 8552 such as:
(1) his country has diplomatic relations;
(2) living in the Philippines for at least 3 continuous
years prior to the filing of the application for adoption;
(3) he must maintain such residency until the adoption
decree is entered;
(4) he has legal capacity to adopt in his own country;
and (5) the adoptee is allowed to enter the adopters
country as the latters adopted child.
None of these qualifications were shown and proved
during the trial.

Effects of Adoption

The father and the mother shall

jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of

their common children.[14] Even the remarriage of the
surviving parent shall not affect the parental authority
over the children, unless the court appoints another
person to be the guardian of the person or property of
the children.[15]

It is true that when the child reaches the age of

emancipation that is, when he attains the age of
majority or 18 years of age[16] emancipation
terminates parental authority over the person and
property of the child, who shall then be qualified and
responsible for all acts of civil life.[17] However,

age of majority.

Persons Cases

Use at your own risk.

parental authority is merely just one of the effects of

legal adoption. Article V of RA 8552 enumerates the
effects of adoption, thus:
(1) sever all legal ties between the biological parent(s)
and the adoptee, except when the biological
parent is the spouse of the adopter;

deem the adoptee as a legitimate child of the

adopter; and


give adopter and adoptee reciprocal rights and

obligations arising from the relationship of parent
and child, including but not limited to:

the right of the adopter to choose the

name the child is to be known; and


the right of the adopter and adoptee to be

legal and compulsory heirs of each other

Therefore, even if emancipation terminates parental

authority, the adoptee is still considered a legitimate
child of the adopter with all the rights of a legitimate
child such as: (1) to bear the surname of the father and
the mother; (2) to receive support from their parents;
and (3) to be entitled to the legitime and other
successional rights. Conversely, the adoptive parents
shall, with respect to the adopted child, enjoy all the
benefits to which biological parents are entitled such as
support] and successional rights.
Although the law on adoption should be construed
liberally, the law is clear and it cannot be modified
without violating the proscription against judicial

Castro V. Gregorio

The applicable law is RA 8552 which requires that the adoption

Jose is a lawyer who has a wife and

by the father of a child born out of wedlock obtain not only the

daughter. They separated because he

consent of his wife but also the consent of his legitimate

turned out to be a homosexual who


had a relationship with his driver. The

driver Larry had two children with his

Under Art. III, Sec 7 of RA 8552, the husband must first

wife Lilibeth, the housekeeper.

obtain the consent of his wife if he seeks to adopt his

Pretending that he had no children

own children born out of wedlock, the following are the

with his wife to whom he has been


separated de facto from, Jose sought


if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate

and was granted the adoption of the

son/daughter of the other; or

children of Larry after Lilibeth died.

if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate

Thus, the wife and daughter filed a


son/daughter: Provided, however, That the other

spouse has signified, his/her consent thereto; or

petition to annul this adoption.

if the spouses are legally separated from each other.

The provision is mandatory. As a general rule, the

husband and wife must file a joint petition for
adoption. In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim

Petitioners argue that they should

have been given notice by the trial
court of the adoption, as adoption laws
require their consent as a requisite in

Persons Cases

Use at your own risk.

the proceedings.

In the absence of any decree of legal separation or

annulment, Jose and Rosario remained legally married

Petitioners are correct.

despite their de facto separation

The law also requires the written consent of the

adopter's children if they are 10 years old or older. In
Article III, Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8552:
SEC. 9. Whose Consent is Necessary to the Adoption.


being properly counseled and informed of his/her right to give

or withhold his/her approval of the adoption, the written
consent of the following to the adoption is hereby required:
(c) The legitimate and adopted sons/daughters, ten (10) years
of age or over, of the adopter(s) and adoptee, if any; (Emphasis

The consent of the adopter's other children is necessary

as it ensures harmony among the prospective siblings.
It also sufficiently puts the other children on notice that
they will have to share their parent's love and care, as
well as their future legitimes, with another person.

It is undisputed that Joanne was Jose and Rosario's

legitimate child and that she was over 10 years old at
the time of the adoption proceedings. Her written
consent, therefore, was necessary for the adoption to
be valid.


Bartolome V. SSS

When the adoptive parent died less than three (3) years after the

John died without issue. So, his

adoption decree, John was still a minor, at about four (4) years of

alleged mother claimed his death


benefits from SSS but it denied the

request reasoning that John had

By analogy, restoration of custody is applicable when we put it

already been adopted by their great

side by side with Sec. 20 of RA 8552 Sec 20 which allows the

grandfather Cornerlio Colcol.

restoration of parental authority in cases the minor is still a

However, the mother reasoned that

minor or is incapacitated at the time of rescission. This ensures

the adoptive father had already died,

that the adoptee, who is still a minor, is not left to fend for

although she missed to present the

himself at such a tender age.

evidence earlier. Acdg to SSS, even if

he died, the natural mother would still

We are guided by the catena of cases and the state policies

not be able to claim because the Labor

behind RA 8552 wherein the paramount consideration is the

Code limits beneficiaries to legitimate

best interest of the child.

ones. But the SC later on ruled that the

Moreover, even though parental authority is severed by virtue of

dependent parents.

adoption, the ties between the adoptee and the biological

parents are not entirely eliminated. Biological parents, in some
instances, are able to inherit from the adopted, as can be
gleaned from Art. 190 of the Family Code.

provision is Art. 984 of the New Civil Code: In case of the death of
an adopted child, leaving no children or descendants, his
parents and relatives by consanguinity and not by adoption,
shall be his legal heirs.

Persons Cases

Use at your own risk.

From the foregoing, it is apparent that the biological parents

retain their rights of succession to the estate of their child who
was the subject of adoption. While the benefits arising from the
death of an SSS covered employee do not form part of the
estateof the adopted child, the pertinent provision on legal or
intestate succession at least reveals the policy on the rights of
the biological parents and those by adoption vis-

-vis the right

to receive benefits from the adopted.

On top of this restoration of parental authority, the fact of
documentary evidence submitted to the ECC:

Petitioner was a housekeeper with 7 children and she

only consented to the adoption to give the children a
bright future.


Petitioner and John had the same residence "Brgy.

Capurictan, Solsona, Ilocos Norte."


John, in his SSS application,28 named petitioner as one

of his beneficiaries for his benefits under RA 8282,
otherwise known as the "Social Security Law parent.


De Asis V. CA


The mother filed an action for


maintenance and support for the two

COMPROMISE; REASON. The right to receive support can neither

minors but the father denied paternity.

be renounced nor transmitted to a third person. Future support

The parties mutually agreed to move

cannot be the subject of a compromise. The right to life cannot

for the dismissal of the complaint

be renounced; hence, support, which is the means to attain the

subject to the condition that the father

former, cannot be renounced. xxx To allow renunciation or

should not pursue his counterclaim.

transmission or compensation of the family right of a person to

The motion was granted. But later,

support is virtually to allow either suicide or the conversion of

another claim was filed by the mother,

the recipient to a public burden. This is contrary to public policy.

thus the father moved to dismiss the

complaint on the ground of res

2. The manifestation sent in by respondents mother in the first

judicata. The trial court denied the

case, which acknowledged that it would be useless to pursue its

motion, ruling that res judicata is

complaint for support, amounted to renunciation as it severed

inapplicable in an action for support

the vinculum that gives the minor, Glen Camil, the right to claim

for the reason that renunciation or

support from his putative parent, the petitioner. It violates the

waiver of future support is prohibited

prohibition against any compromise of the right to support.

by law. Hence, this petition.


SC affirmed the TC and CA: The right to


receive support can neither be

PARTIES. It is true that in order to claim support, filiation and/or

renounced nor transmitted to a third

paternity must first be shown between the claimant and the

person. Furthermore, future support

parent. However, paternity and filiation or the lack of the same

cannot be the subject of a

is a relationship that must be judicially established and it is for


the court to declare its existence or absence. It cannot be left to

Persons Cases

Use at your own risk.

the will or agreement of the parties. Although in the case under

scrutiny, the admission may be binding upon the respondent,
such an admission is at most evidentiary and does not
conclusively establish the lack of filiation.

Gan V. Reyes

Sec 4, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court clearly states that, unless
ordered by the trial court, judgments in actions for support are

Augustus Gan denied paternity of 3 yr


Actions for support are

immediately executory and cannot be stayed by an appeal. This

complaint for support with prayer for

immediately executory

is an exception to the general rule which provides that the

support pendente lite, arguing that

and can be brought in

taking of an appeal stays the execution of the judgment and

certificate of birth indicated her father

advance even if the issue

that advance executions will only be allowed if there are urgent

as "UNKNOWN." His motion was

on filiation is still being

reasons therefor. In all judgments for support, the court makes

denied but he was later declared in


no distinction between those which are the subject of an appeal

default. Hence, the court received the

and those which are not.

evidence ex parte wherein the claim of

filiation and support was adequately

In all cases involving a child, his interest and welfare are always

proved. Thus, the court ordered

the paramount concerns. There may be instances where, in view

P20,000.00 every month and issued a

of the poverty of the child, it would be a travesty of justice to

writ against the motor vehicle

refuse him support until the decision of the trial court attains

reasoning private respondent's

finality while time continues to slip away.

immediate need for schooling.

Petitioner insisted that as the

In De Leon v. Soriano: The money and property adjudged for

judgment sought to be executed did

support and education should and must be given presently and

not yet attain finality and argued that

without delay because if it had to wait the final judgment, the

it was issued without notice to him

children may in the meantime have suffered because of lack of

because he received copy of the

food or have missed and lost years in school because of lack of

motion for immediate execution two


(2) weeks after its scheduled hearing.

The CA said that it is immediately
executory and it favors substantial
justice over technicalities.
Thus, this appeal wherein petitioner
claims adultery of the child's mother
and asked for DNATesting.


Mangonon V. CA

Under Article 199* of the Family Code, respondent Francisco, as

Belen Mangonon gave birth to twins

the next immediate relative of Rica and Rina, is tasked to give

within 7 months after her annulment

Art, 199 order of liability; a

support to his granddaughters in default of their parents. This is

with Federico (lack of parental

grandfather is liable for

in lieu of the prima facie evidence that established petitioner

consent). She later raised her twins in

support* in case the

and Federico are the parents of the children.

the US together with her 2nd husband

parents are financially

*merely joint

Art. 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 brus and bras.
Other provisions used:
Art. 174. Legitimate children shall have the right:
(1) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother, in conformity with the
provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames;
(2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in proper cases,
their brothers and sisters, in conformity with the provisions of this
Code on Support; and
(3) To be entitled to the legitime and other successional rights granted to them by
the Civil Code.

Due to the impending deadline for

admission to college, she decided to
file a petition for declaration of
legitimacy and support with support
pendente lite from her 1st husband
Federico and his father Francisco.

alleged biological father and

Persons Cases

Use at your own risk.

Art. 195. Subject to the provisions of the succeeding articles, the following are
obliged to support each other to the whole extent set forth in the preceding article:
(2) Legitimate ascendants and descendants;


grandfather to provide monthly

support. Francisco alleged that since
the birth certs do not bear the
signatures of the Federico then there is

Grandpa Very Rich - owns and

manages twelve gasoline

Art. 194. Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling,

clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the
financial capacity of the family.

stations, substantial real

estate, and is engaged in
shipping, brokerage and
freight forwarding, etc.

The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to in the preceding

paragraph shall include his schooling or training for some profession,
trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority. Transportation
shall include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from
place of work.

no basis for the claim of support. Also,

he cannot also be liable according to
the order of liability for support under
Art. 199 FCP.
In response, petitioner contends that
both she (compelled to apply a loan for
Federico are financially capable thus
liability should fall on Francisco.


Lim V. Lim

In this case, the inability of Edward and Cheryl to sufficiently

Cheryl and Edward with their 3

provide for their children shifts a portion of their obligation to

children lived with

Only grandchildren, as

the ascendants in the nearest degree, both in the paternal

grandparents, Chua Giak and Mariano

blood relatives, are

(petitioners) and maternal lines, following the ordering in Article

Lim. Cheryl moved out with the

entitled to support from


children because she caught Edward

themselves. Mother not

only to their descendants as this word is commonly understood

petition for support, the TC ordered


to refer to relatives, by blood of lower degree. As petitioners

Edward to provide monthly support of

grandchildren by blood, only respondents Lester Edward,

6k and later order a total of 40k for

Candice Grace and Mariano III belong to this category. Indeed,

which the balance of 34k shall be

the grandparents, in case

of disability by the parents

only to her husband Edward, arising from their marital bond.


They appealed to the SC because they

support the trial court awarded cannot be determined from the

were of the view that grandchildren

records. Thus, we are constrained to remand the case to the trial

cannot demand support directly from

court for this limited purpose.

their grandparents if they have parents

(ascendants of nearest degree) who
are capable of supporting them. This is
so because we have to follow the order
of support under Art. 199.


Dolina V.

Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her

Cherryl B. Dolina filed a petition with


child. The object of R.A. 9262 is the protection and safety of

prayer for the issuance of a TPO

women and children. Although a protection order may include

against respondent Glenn D. Vallecera

the grant of legal support for the wife and the child, this

invoking RA 9262.

assumes that both are entitled to a protection order and to legal


In that complaint, she added a

handwritten prayer for financial

Contrary to her claim, neither she nor her child ever lived with

support from Vallecera which she

Vallecera. As it turned out, the true object of her action was to

based on the latters Certificate of Live

get financial support from Vallecera for her child.

Birth which listed Vallecera as the

childs father. She also asked the RTC to

To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action,

order Philippine Airlines to withhold

first establish the filiation of the child, if the same is not

admitted or acknowledged. Since Dolinas demand for support

denied that the signature on the birth

for her son is based on her claim that he is Valleceras illegitimate

cert was his and said that the petition

Persons Cases

Use at your own risk.

child, the latter is not entitled to such support if he had not

is a harassment suit intended to force

acknowledged him, until Dolina shall have proved his relation to

him to acknowledge the child as his,

him. The childs remedy is to file through her mother a judicial

nor did he live with Cheryl thus there

action against Vallecera for compulsory recognition. If filiation is

was no need for the TPO.

beyond question, support follows as matter of obligation. In

short, illegitimate children are entitled to support and

RTC dismissed it since no prior

successional rights but their filiation must be duly proved.

judgment exists establishing the

filiation of Dolinas son. She was

Alternatively, she may directly file an action for support, where

admonished to first file a petition for

the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and

compulsory recognition of her child as


a prerequisite for support. Thus, she

filed petition directly with the SC.


Lim-Lua V. Lua

Was the CA correct in deducting the medical/dental/transpo etc?

On September 3, 2003, Sally filed an

action for declaration of nullity of her

What is support pending

No. The CA is only partly correct. Support pendent lite is the

marriage to Romy with a prayer for

litigation (pendent lite)?

provisional monthly support granted by the court motu proprio

support pendent lite in the amount of

From what date should it

or upon verified petition of any of the parties before the

500k a month.

be paid? If there are

rendition of the final judgment without delving fully on the

already arrears when the

merits of the case. As a matter of law it comprises everything

The RTC granted said support but only

court determined and

indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical

in the amount P250,000 a month

granted the amount what

attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the

retroactive to Sept. 3, 2003. On appeal,

can be deducted from said

financial capacity of the parties.

the CA rendered a decision on April 12,

accumulated support in

2005 further reducing the amount of

arrears? These are the

Only the medical and dental expenses of Sally and their son,

support pendente lite to P115,000 a

issues resolved in this case

credit card purchases of their daughter and son for groceries

month also retroactive as of the filing

of the spouses Sally and

and dry goods totaling P648,102.29 may be allowed as

of the complaint on Sept. 3, 2003.


Controversy arose when Romy
In this case, the monthly support was intended primarily for

complied with the said decision on

food, household expenses such as salaries of drivers and medical

June 28, 2005. By that date the total

and dental expenses of the spouse and children entitled to

support in arrears amounted to

P2,645,000.00. But he deducted from it

of the two expensive cars bought by respondent for his children

the value of two expensive cars

plus their maintenance cost, travel expenses of Sally and their

(Volkswagen Beetle and BMW316i)

daughter, purchases through credit card of items other than

plus their maintenance cost

groceries and dry goods (clothing) should not have been

amounting to P2,482,348.16. Thus he

deducted as these bear no relation to the judgment awarding

paid Sally only the sum of P162,651.90

support pendente lite.

as support in arrears. In deducting said

amount, Romy contended that being

When a father is required to pay to the mother money for her

children of upper class society, the cars

and their

and their maintenance are

of law claim credit on account of payments designated as gifts,

indispensable to their day-to-day

nor is he entitled to credit for an automobile given to the

living. This was denied.

However, the CA agreed with all the
items to deducted from the total
arrears of the support pendent lite,
including also the following: medical
and dental expenses, travel expenses,
credit card purchases and salon

Persons Cases

Use at your own risk.

expenses, school expenses and cash all

in all totaling P946,465.64.