Lacson v.

Lacson
24 SCRA 837 August 28, 2006

FACTS:
The sisters Maowee and Maonaa are legitimate daughters of petitioner Edward Lacson and his
wife, Lea Lacson. Maowee was born on 1974, while Maonaa, a little less than a year later. Not
long after the birth of Maonaa, petitioner left the conjugal home in Molo, Iloilo City, virtually
forcing mother and children to seek shelter somewhere else. From 1976 to 1994, or for a period of
eighteen (18) years, they shuttled from one dwelling place to another not their own from the house
of her mother in law, to her mother, to her brother.
It appears that from the start of their estrangement, Lea did not badger her husband Edward for
support. Records reveal that in a note dated December 10, 1975, Edward promised to give support
to his daughters. As things turned out, however, Edward reneged on his promise of support. Lea
would admit, though, that Edward occasionally gave their children meager amounts for school
expenses. Sometime in 1995, Lea, in behalf of her two daughters, filed a complaint against Edward
for support before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City.
Maowee and Maonaa, thru their mother, averred that their father Edward, despite being gainfully
employed and owning several pieces of valuable lands, has not provided them support since 1976.
They also alleged that, owing to years of Edward's failure and neglect, their mother had, from time
to time, borrowed money from her brother Noel.
In his Answer, Edward alleged giving to Maowee and Maonaa sufficient sum to meet their needs.
He explained, however, that his lack of regular income and the unproductivity of the land he
inherited, not his neglect, accounted for his failure at times.
RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff sisters ordering Edward to pay them the amount around 2 million
pesos equivalent to 18-years’ worth of support in arrears. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision
of the RTC. The motion for reconsideration filed by Edward was likewise dismissed. Hence this
appeal. Before the SC,
Edward contended that the demand required by law was never complied with by Leah (from 1976
to 1994, no previous extrajudicial, let alone judicial, demand having been made by the
respondents) thus the award of support in arrears is not proper.