CALDERON V. ROXAS G.R.
185595, JANUARY 9, 2013 the following circumstances well-supported by documentary and testimonial evidence: (1)
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Decision 1 dated
September 9, 2008 and Resolution2 dated December 15, 2008 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 85384. The CA affirmed the Orders dated March 7, 2005 and
May 4, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 260 in Civil
Case No. 97-0608.
Petitioner Ma. Carminia C. Calderon and private respondent Jose Antonio F. Roxas, were
married on December 4, 1985 and their union produced four children. On January 16,
1998, petitioner filed an Amended Complaint3 for the declaration of nullity of their marriage
on the ground of psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code of the
Philippines.
On May 19, 1998, the trial court issued an Order4 granting petitioner’s application for
support pendente lite. Said order states in part:
…Accordingly, the defendant is hereby ordered to contribute to the support of the above-
named minors, (aside from 50% of their school tuition fees which the defendant has
agreed to defray, plus expenses for books and other school supplies), the sum of
P42,292.50 per month, effective May 1, 1998, as his share in the monthly support of the
children, until further orders from this Court. The first monthly contribution, i.e., for the
month of May 1998, shall be given by the defendant to the plaintiff within five (5) days from
receipt of a copy of this Order. The succeeding monthly contributions of P42,292.50 shall
be directly given by the defendant to the plaintiff without need of any demand, within the
first five (5) days of each month beginning June 1998. All expenses for books and other
school supplies shall be shouldered by the plaintiff and the defendant, share and share
alike. Finally, it is understood that any claim for support-in-arrears prior to May 1, 1998,
may be taken up later in the course of the proceedings proper. x x x xSO ORDERED. 5
The aforesaid order and subsequent orders for support pendente lite were the subject of
G.R. No. 139337 entitled "Ma. Carminia C. Roxas v. Court of Appeals and Jose Antonio F.
Roxas" decided by this Court on August 15, 2001. 6 The Decision in said case declared
that "the proceedings and orders issued by the trial court in the application for support
pendente lite (and the main complaint for annulment of marriage) in the re-filed case, that
is, in Civil Case No. 97-0608 were not rendered null and void by the omission of a
statement in the certificate of non-forum shopping regarding the prior filing and dismissal
without prejudice of Civil Case No. 97-0523 which involves the same parties." The
assailed orders for support pendente lite were thus reinstated and the trial court resumed
hearing the main case.
On motion of petitioner’s counsel, the trial court issued an Order dated October 11, 2002
directing private respondent to give support in the amount of P42,292.50 per month
starting April 1, 1999 pursuant to the May 19, 1998 Order.7
On February 11, 2003, private respondent filed a Motion to Reduce Support citing, among
other grounds, that the P42,292.50 monthly support for the children as fixed by the court
was even higher than his then P20,800.00 monthly salary as city councilor. 8
After hearing, the trial court issued an Order9 dated March 7, 2005 granting the motion to
reduce support and denying petitioner’s motion for spousal support, increase of the
children’s monthly support pendente lite and support-in-arrears. The trial court considered
the spouses’ eldest child, Jose Antonio, Jr. is a Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman and is
already earning a monthly salary; (2) all the children stay with private respondent on
weekends in their house in Pasay City; (3) private respondent has no source of income
except his salary and benefits as City Councilor; (4) the voluminous documents consisting
of official receipts in payment of various billings including school tuition fees, private
tutorials and purchases of children’s school supplies, personal checks issued by private
respondent, as well as his own testimony in court, all of which substantiated his claim that
he is fulfilling his obligation of supporting his minor children during the pendency of the
action; (5) there is no proof presented by petitioner that she is not gainfully employed, the
spouses being both medical doctors; (6) the unrebutted allegation of private respondent
that petitioner is already in the United States; and (7) the alleged arrearages of private
respondent was not substantiated by petitioner with any evidence while private respondent
had duly complied with his obligation as ordered by the court through his overpayments in
other aspects such as the children’s school tuition fees, real estate taxes and other
necessities.
Petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration of the March 7, 2005 Order was denied on
May 4, 2005.10
On May 16, 2005, the trial court rendered its Decision11 in Civil Case No. 97-0608
decreeing thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring (sic):
1. Declaring null and void the marriage between plaintiff Ma.Carmina C. Roxas and
defendant Jose Antonio Roxas solemnized on December 4, 1985 at San Agustin Convent,
in Manila. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila is hereby ordered to cancel the marriage
contract of the parties as appearing in the Registry of Marriage as the same is void;
2. Awarding the custody of the parties’ minor children Maria Antoinette Roxas, Julian
Roxas and Richard Roxas to their mother herein petitioner, with the respondent hereby
given his visitorial and or custodial rights at [sic] the express conformity of petitioner.
3. Ordering the respondent Jose Antonio Roxas to provide support to the children in the
amount of P30,000.00 a month, which support shall be given directly to petitioner
whenever the children are in her custody, otherwise, if the children are in the provisional
custody of respondent, said amount of support shall be recorded properly as the amounts
are being spent. For that purpose the respondent shall then render a periodic report to
petitioner and to the Court to show compliance and for monitoring. In addition, the
respondent is ordered to support the proper schooling of the children providing for the
payment of the tuition fees and other school fees and charges including transportation
expenses and allowances needed by the children for their studies.
4. Dissolving the community property or conjugal partnership property of the parties as the
case may be, in accordance with law.
Let copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the Solicitor General, the Office of the
City Prosecutor, Paranaque City, and the City Civil Registrar of Paranaque City and
Manila. SO ORDERED.12
On June 14, 2005, petitioner through counsel filed a Notice of Appeal from the Orders
dated March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005.
In her appeal brief, petitioner emphasized that she is not appealing the Decision dated
May 16, 2005 which had become final as no appeal therefrom had been brought by the
parties or the City Prosecutor or the Solicitor General. Petitioner pointed out that her
appeal is "from the RTC Order dated March 7, 2005, issued prior to the rendition of the
decision in the main case", as well as the May 4, 2005 Order denying her motion for partial
reconsideration.13
By Decision dated September 9, 2008, the CA dismissed the appeal on the ground that
granting the appeal would disturb the RTC Decision of May 16, 2005 which had long
become final and executory. The CA further noted that petitioner failed to avail of the
proper remedy to question an interlocutory order.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA.
Hence, this petition raising the following issues:
A. DID THE CA COMMIT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION and/or
REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT THE RTC ORDERS DATED
MARCH 7, 2005 AND MAY 4, 2005 ARE MERELY INTERLOCUTORY?
B. DID THE CA COMMIT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION and/or
REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DISMISSED OUTRIGHT THE APPEAL
FROM SAID RTC ORDERS, WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE
APPEAL ON THE MERITS?14
The core issue presented is whether the March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005 Orders on the
matter of support pendente lite are interlocutory or final.
This Court has laid down the distinction between interlocutory and final orders, as follows:
x x x A "final" judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing
more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which,
on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights
and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or order
that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res judicata or prescription. Once
rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining
the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by
the Court except to await the parties’ next move (which among others, may consist of the
filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately,
of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes "final" or, to use the
established and more distinctive term, "final and executory."x x x x
Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the
Court’s task of adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining their rights and
liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be
done by the Court, is "interlocutory" e.g., an order denying a motion to dismiss under Rule
16 of the Rules, or granting a motion for extension of time to file a pleading, or authorizing
amendment thereof, or granting or denying applications for postponement, or production
or inspection of documents or things, etc. Unlike a "final" judgment or order, which is
appealable, as above pointed out, an "interlocutory" order may not be questioned on
appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final
judgment rendered in the case. 15 [Emphasis supplied]
The assailed orders relative to the incident of support pendente lite and support in arrears,
as the term suggests, were issued pending the rendition of the decision on the main action
for declaration of nullity of marriage, and are therefore interlocutory. They did not finally
dispose of the case nor did they consist of a final adjudication of the merits of petitioner’s
claims as to the ground of psychological incapacity and other incidents as child custody,
support and conjugal assets.
The Rules of Court provide for the provisional remedy of support pendente lite which may
be availed of at the commencement of the proper action or proceeding, or at any time prior
to the judgment or final order.16 On March 4, 2003, this Court promulgated the Rule on
Provisional Orders17 which shall govern the issuance of provisional orders during the
pendency of cases for the declaration of nullity of marriage, annulment of voidable
marriage and legal separation. These include orders for spousal support, child support,
child custody, visitation rights, hold departure, protection and administration of common
property.
Petitioner contends that the CA failed to recognize that the interlocutory aspect of the
assailed orders pertains only to private respondent’s motion to reduce support which was
granted, and to her own motion to increase support, which was denied. Petitioner points
out that the ruling on support in arrears which have remained unpaid, as well as her prayer
for reimbursement/payment under the May 19, 1998 Order and related orders were in the
nature of final orders assailable by ordinary appeal considering that the orders referred to
under Sections 1 and 4 of Rule 61 of the Rules of Court can apply only prospectively.
Thus, from the moment the accrued amounts became due and demandable, the orders
under which the amounts were made payable by private respondent have ceased to be
provisional and have become final.
We disagree.
The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and
the end of the suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the
whole controversy.18 An interlocutory order merely resolves incidental matters and leaves
something more to be done to resolve the merits of the case. In contrast, a judgment or
order is considered final if the order disposes of the action or proceeding completely, or
terminates a particular stage of the same action.19 Clearly, whether an order or resolution
is final or interlocutory is not dependent on compliance or non-compliance by a party to its
directive, as what petitioner suggests. It is also important to emphasize the temporary or
provisional nature of the assailed orders.
Provisional remedies are writs and processes available during the pendency of the action
which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests
therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in
the case. They are provisional because they constitute temporary measures availed of
during the pendency of the action, and they are ancillary because they are mere incidents
in and are dependent upon the result of the main action. 20 The subject orders on the
matter of support pendente lite are but an incident to the main action for declaration of
nullity of marriage.
Moreover, private respondent’s obligation to give monthly support in the amount fixed by
the RTC in the assailed orders may be enforced by the court itself, as what transpired in
the early stage of the proceedings when the court cited the private respondent in contempt
of court and ordered him arrested for his refusal/failure to comply with the order granting
support pendente lite.21 A few years later, private respondent filed a motion to reduce
support while petitioner filed her own motion to increase the same, and in addition sought
spousal support and support in arrears. This fact underscores the provisional character of
the order granting support pendente lite. Petitioner’s theory that the assailed orders have
ceased to be provisional due to the arrearages incurred by private respondent is therefore
untenable.1âwphi1
Under Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
appeal from interlocutory orders is not allowed. Said provision reads:
SECTION 1. Subject of appeal. - An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order
that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by
these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from
judgment;
(c) An interlocutory order;
(d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(e) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or
compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground
vitiating consent;
(f) An order of execution;
(g) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in
separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while
the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
(h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice;
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the
aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. (Emphasis
supplied.)
The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an appropriate
special civil action under Rule 65 provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without
or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Having chosen the wrong
remedy in questioning the subject interlocutory orders of the RTC, petitioner's appeal was
correctly dismissed by the CA.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED, for lack of merit. The
Decision dated September 9, 2008 and Resolution dated December 15, 2008 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 85384 are AFFIRMED. With costs against the petitioner.SO
ORDERED.
Facts: Petitioner Ma. Carminia C. Calderon and private respondent Jose Antonio F.
Roxas, were married on December 4, 1985 and their union produced four children. On
January 16, 1998, petitioner filed an Amended Complaint for the declaration of nullity of
their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code
of the Philippines.
The trial court issued an Order granting petitioner’s application for support
pendente lite. respondent filed a Motion to Reduce Support. The trial court rendered its
Decision declaring null and void the marriage, awarding the custody of the parties’ minor
children to their mother, ordering the respondent Jose Antonio Roxas to provide support to
the children, and dissolving the community property or conjugal partnership property of the
parties. Petitioner through counsel filed a Notice of Appeal from the Orders.
Issue: Was it a proper petition to assail the order of support pendent lite?
Ruling: The assailed orders relative to the incident of support pendente lite and support in
arrears, as the term suggests, were issued pending the rendition of the decision on the
main action for declaration of nullity of marriage, and are therefore interlocutory. They did
not finally dispose of the case nor did they consist of a final adjudication of the merits of
petitioner’s claims as to the ground of psychological incapacity and other incidents as child
custody, support and conjugal assets.
The Rules of Court provide for the provisional remedy of support pendente lite
which may be availed of at the commencement of the proper action or proceeding, or at
any time prior to the judgment or final order. On March 4, 2003, this Court promulgated the
Rule on Provisional Orders which shall govern the issuance of provisional orders during
the pendency of cases for the declaration of nullity of marriage, annulment of voidable
marriage and legal separation. These include orders for spousal support, child support,
child custody, visitation rights, hold departure, protection and administration of common
property.
Petitioner contends that the CA failed to recognize that the interlocutory aspect
of the assailed orders pertains only to private respondent’s motion to reduce support
which was granted, and to her own motion to increase support, which was denied.
Provisional remedies are writs and processes available during the pendency of
the action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and
interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final
judgment in the case. They are provisional because they constitute temporary measures
availed of during the pendency of the action, and they are ancillary because they are mere
incidents in and are dependent upon the result of the main action. The subject orders on
the matter of support pendente lite are but an incident to the main action for declaration of
nullity of marriage.

LUA V. LUA G.R. 175279-80, JUNE 5, 2013
Subject Matter: Provisional orders; AM No. 02-11-12 SC
Summary: Susan filed a petition against her husband, Danilo, for a declaration of nullity
of marriage with a prayer for support pendente lite. RTC granted P250k monthly support in
addition to P1.75million support in arrear. The CA however reduced the monthly support to
P115k. Based on Danilo’s understanding of the CA decision, Danilo issued a check only in
the amount of P162k in favor of Susana. He explained that the said amount is the
difference between the support in arrear and amount advanced by Danilo to Susana and
his children. On certitorari, the CA ruled that the trial court should not have completely
disregarded the expenses incurred by respondent consisting of the purchase and
maintenance of the two cars, payment of tuition fees, travel expenses, and the credit card
purchases involving groceries, dry goods and books, which certainly inured to the benefit
not only of the two children. Nonetheless, the SC did not agree with CA because any
amount to be credited as monthly support should only cover those incurred for sustenance
and household expenses.
Note that there is no controversy as to the reasonableness and sufficiency of monthly
support as both parties did not appeal the reduced monthly support of P115k which was
determined after due hearing, submission of documentary evidence, and Susan’s
testimony.
Doctrines: Upon receipt of a verified petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriage or for annulment of voidable marriage, or for legal separation, and at any time
during the proceeding, the court, motu proprio or upon verified application of any of the
parties, guardian or designated custodian, may temporarily grant support pendente
liteprior to the rendition of judgment or final order.
Because of its provisional nature, a court does not need to delve fully into the merits of the
case before it can settle an application for this relief. All that a court is tasked to do is
determine the kind and amount of evidence which may suffice to enable it to justly resolve
the application.
It is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence
appearing in the record.
Parties:
Petitioner Susan Lim-Lua
Respondent Danilo Y. Lua
Facts:
Susan filed a petition against Danilo for a declaration of nullity of marriage with
a prayer for support pendente lite for herself and her two children amounting to
P500,000.00 per month. Citing respondent’s huge earnings from salaries and
dividends in several companies and businesses here and abroad.
After due hearing, RTC granted support pendent lite of 250,000.00. Citing Art. 203 of
the Family Code, RTC stated that support is demandable from the time plaintiff
needed the said support but is payable only from the date of judicial demand. A total
of P1,750,000.00 should be paid by Danilo to Susan (i.e P250k x 7 months that
elapsed from time of filing of complaint until hearing of support pendente lite), and
P250,000.00 for every month.
Danilo filed an MR which was denied.
Danilo filed a petition for Certiorari before the CA.
CA, finding that RTC gravely abuse its discretion, reduced monthly support pendente
lite to P115,000.00.
Neither of the parties appealed CA’s decision.
In a Compliance, Danilo issued a check in the amount of P162,651.90 payable to
Susan. Danilo explained that, as decreed in the CA decision, he deducted the
advances given by him to Susan and his children in the sum of P2,482,348.16 (with
attached photocopies of receipts/billings) from the total amount of support in arrears
amounting to P2,645,000.00.
RTC issued a writ of execution as it did not agree with Danilo’s interpretation of the
CA decision.
However, respondent still failed and refused to pay the support in arrears pendente
lite, hence petitioner filed in the a Petition for Contempt of Court with Damages in the
CA. On the other hand, Danilo filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 against the
RTC judge.
CA ruled in favor of Danilo. CA ordered the deduction of the amount of a total of
PhP3,428,813.80 from the current total support in arrears (larger amount to be
deducted from support in arrears; because two expensive cars bought by respondent
for his children plus their maintenance cost, plus travel and grocery expenses were
included in the deduction). It held that the trial court should not have completely
disregarded the expenses incurred by respondent consisting of the purchase and
maintenance of the two cars, payment of tuition fees, travel expenses, and the credit
card purchases involving groceries, dry goods and books, which certainly inured to
the benefit not only of the two children, but their mother as well.
Issue/s:
1. WON certain expenses already incurred by the respondent may be deducted
from the total support in arrears owing to petitioner and her children . (YES –
only those necessary for sustenance and household expenses.)
Argument: Petitioner argues that it was patently erroneous for the CA to have allowed the
deduction of the value of the two cars and their maintenance costs from the support in
arrears, as these items are not indispensable to the sustenance of the family or in keeping
them alive.
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that disallowing the subject deductions would
result in unjust enrichment, thus making him pay for the same obligation twice.
Ratio:
YES– Necessary for sustenance and household expenses already incurred by the
respondent may be deducted from the total support in arrears owing to petitioner and her
children
Substantive law
 As a matter of law, the amount of support which those related by marriage and
family relationship is generally obliged to give each other shall be in proportion
to the resources or means of the giver and to the needs of the recipient. Such
support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing,
medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial
capacity of the family.
Remedial law
 Upon receipt of a verified petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriage or for annulment of voidable marriage, or for legal separation, and at
any time during the proceeding, the court, motu proprio or upon verified
application of any of the parties, guardian or designated custodian, may
temporarily grant support pendente lite prior to the rendition of judgment or final
order.
 Because of its provisional nature, a court does not need to delve fully into the
merits of the case before it can settle an application for this relief. All that a court
is tasked to do is determine the kind and amount of evidence which may suffice
to enable it to justly resolve the application.
  It is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary ii. ORDERING Danilo Y. Lua to resume payment of his monthly
evidence appearing in the record. support of PhP115,000.00 pesos starting from the time payment of
o In this case, the amount of monthly support pendente lite for petitioner this amount was deferred by him subject to the deduction
and her two children was determined after due hearing and aforementioned.
submission of documentary evidence by the parties. Although the iii. DIRECTING the immediate execution of this judgment. SO
ORDERED.”
amount fixed by the trial court was reduced on appeal, it is clear that
the monthly support pendente lite of P115,000.00 ordered by the CA
was intended primarily for the sustenance of petitioner and her
children, e.g., food, clothing, salaries of drivers and house helpers, A.M. 02-11-12-SC
and other household expenses.
o There is no controversy as to the sufficiency and
reasonableness of monthly support pendente lite as it was not
appealed by either party.

o The dispute concerns the deductions made by respondent in settling

the support in arrears.

What deductions should be made?

 The CA should not have allowed all the expenses incurred by Danilo to be
credited against the accrued support pendente lite.
 Any amount respondent seeks to be credited as monthly support should only
cover those incurred for sustenance and household expenses
o As earlier mentioned, the monthly support pendente lite granted by
the trial court was intended primarily for food, household expenses
such as salaries of drivers and house helpers, and also petitioner’s
scoliosis therapy sessions.
o Hence, the value of two expensive cars bought by Danilo for his
children plus their maintenance cost, travel expenses of petitioner and
Angelli, purchases through credit card of items other than groceries
and dry goods (clothing) should have been disallowed, as these bear
no relation to the judgment awarding support pendente lite.
o The ruling of the CA allowing huge deductions from the accrued
monthly support completely ignores the unfair consequences to
petitioner whose sustenance and wellbeing, was given due regard by
the trial and appellate courts.

Wherefore, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated April 20, 2006 of the
Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP Nos. 01154 and 01315 is hereby MODIFIED to read as
follows:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
a) DISMISSING, for lack of merit, the case of Petition for Contempt of Court
with Damages filed by Susan Lim Lua against Danilo Y. Lua with docket
no. SP. CAG.R. No. 01154;
b) GRANTING IN PART Danilo Y. Lua’s Petition for Certioraridocketed as
SP. CA G.R. No. 01315. Consequently, the assailed Orders dated 27
September 2005 and 25 November 2005 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 14, Cebu City issued in Civil Case No. CEB29346 entitled “Susan
Lim Lua versus Danilo Y. Lua, are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE,
and instead a new one is entered:
i. ORDERING the deduction of the amount of Php 648,102.29from
the support pendente litein arrears of Danilo Y. Lua to his wife,
Susan Lim Lua and their two (2) children;