Support Pendente Lite (Rule 61)

Manuel Reyes v. Hon. Leonor Ines-Luciano, GR No. L-48219,

28 February 1979
(Determination of amount to be awarded)
Doctrine: In determining the amount to be awarded as support pendente lite it is not necessary to
go fully into the merits of the case, it being sufficient that the court ascertain the kind and
amount of evidence which it may deem sufficient to enable it to justly resolve the application,
one way or the other, in view of the merely provisional character of the resolution to be entered.
Mere affidavits may satisfy the court to pass upon the application for support pendente lite. 13 It
is enough the the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence appearing in
the record

Froilan Gandionco v. Hon. Senen Penaranda, GR No. 79284,

27 November 1987
(Modification of Francisco vs. Tayao Doctrine)
Doctrine: A decree of legal separation, on the ground of concubinage, may be issued upon proof
by preponderance of evidence in the action for legal separation. 3 No criminal proceeding or
conviction is necessary. To this end, the doctrine in Francisco vs. Tayao 4 has been modified, as
that case was decided under Act. No. 2710, when absolute divorce was then allowed and had for
its grounds the same grounds for legal separation under the New Civil Code, with the
requirement, under such former law, that the guilt of defendant spouses had to be established by
final judgment in a criminal action.

Support pendente lite, as a remedy, can be availed of in an action for legal separation, and
granted at the discretion of the judge. 6 If petitioner finds the amount of support pendente lite
ordered as too onerous, he can always file a motion to modify or reduce the same.
 Antonio Vasco v. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-46763, 28
February 1978
(Applicability of Parens Patriae)
Doctrine:The doctrine of parens patriae is of doubtful relevance and may not be invoked to
sustain the execution of a judgment for support pending appeal, where the recipients of support
granted by the lower court are no longer minors. The doctrine refers to the inherent power and
authority of the state to provide protection of the person and property of a person non sui juris.
Under that doctrine the state has the sovereign power of guardianship over persons under
disability. Thus, the state is considered the parens patriace of minors.