WHO ARE OBLIGED TO GIVE SUPPORT
doing something (art. 1088), and spouses are
1. [G.R. No. 4089. January 12, 1909. ]
ARTURO PELAYO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARCELO
LAURON, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
J. H. Junquera, for Appellant.
Filemon Sotto, for Appellees.
-23d of November, 1906, Arturo Pelayo, a physician-
residing in Cebu, filed a complaint against Marcelo
Lauron and Juana Abella setting forth that on or about
the 13th of October of said year, at night, the plaintiff
was called to the house of the defendants, situated in
San Nicolas, and that upon arrival he was requested
by them to render medical assistance to their
daughter-in-law who was about to give birth
-value of the services rendered by him was P500,
which the defendants refuse to pay without alleging
any good reason there for; that for said reason he
prayed that judgment be entered in his favor as
against the defendants,
-alleged: daughter-in-law had died in consequence of
the said childbirth, and that when she was alive she
lived with her husband independently and in a
separate house without any relation whatever with
them, and that, if on the day when she gave birth she
was in the house of the defendants, her stay there
was accidental and due to fortuitous circumstances
-evidence adduced by both parties, judgment was
entered by the court below on the 5th of April, 1907,
whereby the defendants were absolved from the
former complaint, on account of the lack of sufficient
evidence to establish a right of action against the
defendants, with costs against the plaintiff,
-in order to decide the claim of the said physician
regarding the recovery of his fees, it becomes
necessary to decide who is bound to pay the bill,
whether the father and mother-in-law of the patient, or
the husband of the latter.
-The rendering of medical assistance in case of illness
is comprised among the mutual obligations to which
spouses are bound by way of mutual support.
-If every obligation consists in giving, doing, or not
mutually bound to support each other, there can be no
question but that, when either of them by reason of
illness should be in need of medical assistance, the
other is under the unavoidable obligation to furnish
the necessary services of a physician in order that
health may be restored,
-rendered to the daughter-in-law of the defendants
during her childbirth is the husband of the patient and
not her father and mother- in-law, the defendants
herein. The fact that it was not the husband who
called the plaintiff and requested his assistance for his
wife is no bar to the fulfillment of the said obligation,
-Therefore, in view of the considerations hereinbefore
set forth, it is our opinion that the judgment appealed
from should be affirmed with the costs against the
Appellant. So ordered.
2. G.R. No. L-45616 May 16, 1939
FELICIANO SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, vs.
FRANCISCO ZULUETA, Judge of First Instance of
Cavite,JOSEFA DIEGO and MARIANO SANCHEZ,
assisted by his mother,JOSEFA DIEGO, as guardian
ad litem, respondents-appellees.
-Court of First Instance of Cavite, wherein Josefa
Diego and Mario Sanchez are plaintiffs and Feliciano
Sanchez is defendant, the plaintiffs ask that the
defendant be sentenced to pay them a monthly
allowance
-plaintiffs are the wife and child, respectively, of the
defendant; that the latter, since 1932, refused and still
refuses to support the plaintiffs
-defendant receives from the United States Army a
monthly pension of P174.20; that the defendant
abandoned the plaintiffs without any justifiable cause
-defendant alleges, as special defense, that the
plaintiff Josefa Diego abandoned the conjugal home
on October 27, 1930, without his knowledge or
consent, because she committed adultery with
Macario Sanchez,
-the filing of the complaint, the plaintiffs asked the
court to compel the defendant to give them, by way of
allowance pendente lite, the sum of P50 a month.
1
Mario Sanchez is not his legitimate child but is the
adulterous child of the plaintiff with Macario Sanchez,
The court, without acceding to this petition of the
defendant to adduce evidence, favorably acted upon
the application of the plaintiffs and ordered the
defendant to pay a monthly allowance pendente lite of
P50.
-July 1, 1936. In view of these facts, the defendant
filed a petition for prohibition before the Court of
Appeals against the judge of the Court of First
Instance and the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals
denied the petition,
-Adultery on the part of the wife is a valid defense
against an action for support. child, it is also a
defense that it is the fruit of such adulterous relations,
for in that case, it would not be the child of the
defendant and, hence, would not be entitled. this
defense should be established, and not merely
alleged.
-If the defendant has a valid defense which calls for
proof, and he asks for an opportunity to present
evidence, it is error to deny him this opportunity.
-The decision rendered by the Court Appeals is
reversed, and it is ordered that the petitioner be given
an opportunity to present evidence in support of his
defense
3. G.R. No. L-48219 July 25, 1979
MANUEL J.C. REYES, Petitioner, vs. HON. LEONOR
INES-LUCIANO, as Judge of the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court, Quezon City, COURT OF
APPEALS and CELIA ILUSTRE-REYES,
Respondents.
-motion for reconsideration filed on April 26, 1979 by
the private respondent, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, asking
that the decision be modified by making the payment
of the support pendente lite of Four Thousand Pesos
(P4,000.00) a month retroact to June 1976,
1) There is ample evidence that the business of the
petitioner, Manuel J.
2. Reyes, can very easily bear the burden of support
petition for support pendente lite is directed mainly on
the private respondent's share in the conjugal
partnership
3) Full support may be taken from the private
respondent's share of the conjugal properties
(4) The private respondent, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, has
incurred obligations during the three (3) years period
that she was not given any actual support
5) The corporation, Development and Technology
Consultants, Inc., of which the petitioner is the
controlling stockholder, in addition to four (4) cars in
its name, has acquired two (2) new Opel Record
sedan cars, each worth One Hundred Twenty
Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00), and the petitioner
lives in an expensive condominium
6) Finally, on April 20, 1979, the petitioner and his
three (3) children went abroad on a two-month
pleasure trip,
-The support pendente lite in the amount of Four
Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) is reasonable. Hence,
the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner has no
merit
-during the period that she was not receiving any
support she incurred debts. She must also pay
attorney's fees
-whatever support the private respondent, Celia
Ilustre-Reyes, might now be receiving will be
deducted from her share of the conjugal properties,
the Court finds that under the equities and
circumstances of the case, the decision should be
modified so as to make the support pendente lite of
Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) a month retroact to
November 1, 1977.
-WHEREFORE, the decision promulgated on
February 28, 1979 is hereby modified in the sense
that the support pendente lite at the rate of Four
Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) a month should
commence from November 1, 1977.
*Source of Support
*Order of Support