REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Fourth Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Antipolo City
Branch 140

MARCOSA M. CARIADO AND

MICHELLE N. SALANGSANG,
Plaintiffs, Civil Case No.: 22-12763
For: Support with Damages and
-versus- Attorney’s Fees

WINNIE M. CARIADO,
Defendant.

x--------------------------x

MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES
PLAINTIFFS, through the undersigned attorney and in faithful compliance
with the Order dated December 13, 2022 of this Honorable Trial Court directing
herein plaintiffs to submit a memorandum of authorities that would justify its cause
of action in this instant case most respectfully aver as follows:

I. PREFATORY STATEMENT
This Honorable Trial Court issued the aforesaid Order to direct the plaintiffs
to submit a memorandum of authorities that would justify its claims for support
including the claim for moral damages and attorney’s fees as the plaintiff allegedly
failed to allege any provision of law or jurisprudence on its Complaint. Thus, it is
worthy to quote the basis of support, to wit:

“A human being coming to life with an end assigned to him

by hiw own nature, has a right to exist and to develop according to
his capabilities; that is, he has an absolute right to self preservation.
In the actual organization of the family and of society, the
obligation to provide for suh neccessity is imposed firstly upon the
family and lastly upon the state, and each is duty bound to proccure
for the one unable to provide for himself the necessary means for
his self preservation and improvements; a highly social duty
depending not only on the will of the obliged but imposed upon all
as one of the necessary conditions of humanity’s progressive life1.”

1
Arrozola Encyclopedia Espanola, Vol. 2 p. 518, cited in Francisco’s Quizzers on Civil Law, Book I, p. 166; and in
Caguioa’s Civil Law, “Book I, 1955 Ed. P. 262)
 Hence, this Memorandum of Authorities.

II.ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT A MOTHER IS
ENTITLED TO SUPPORT FROM HER WELL OFF
DAUGHTER

WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFFS ARE

ENTITLED TO CLAIM MORAL DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES

III. DISCUSSION / ARGUMENTS

A MOTHER IS ENTITLED TO
SUPPORT FROM A WELL OFF
DAUGHTER

1. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a mother is entitled to support

from a well off daughter. This is pursuant to Article 195 of the Family Code of
the Philippines which hereby quoted as follows:

“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:
(1) The spouses;
(2) Legitimate ascendants and descendants;
(3) Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and
illegitimate children of the latter;
(4) Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate
and illegitimate children of the latter; and
(5) Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood.”
(emphasis supplied)

2. As previously stated on the Complaint dated August 17, 2022,

petitioner Marcosa M. Cariado (“plaintiff Marcosa”) is the mother of defendant
Winnie M. Cariado (“defendant Winnie”) from her first common law partner,
Benito Liamson (“Mr. Liamson”) while plaintiff Michelle Cariado Salangsang 2
(“plaintiff Michelle”) is a daughter of plaintiff Marcosa from second common law
partner Alfredo Chan Ngo (“Mr. Ngo”) .

2
Certificate of Live Birth of Michelle Cariado Salangsang as Annex “A”
 3. Mr. Liamson had long passed away while Mr. Ngo is financially
unstable and presently suffering from unusual neurogenerative disease Parkinson’s
and depression.

4. Similarly, petitioner Marcosa, a senior citizen and with no monthly

pension, suffered a blockade in the blood supply of her brain which resulted to a
major stroke and eventually, she was confined at the Philippine General Hospital
(“PGH”) for several weeks and presently committed to Bahay Kanlungan ni Maria
Domenica in Antipolo City for several months now.

5. Correspondingly, plaintiff Michelle has no monetary means to

financially support the medical and daily needs of plaintiff Marcosa as she is
merely dependent to her husband while plaintiff Winnie is well off as she owned
and managed a lot of business ventures like restaurants 3 in Cagayan De Oro City,
owning real properties such condominium situated at a posh Cedar Crest
Condominium in Taguig City and personal properties like high end cars.

6. As such and being a well off daughter, defendant Winnie has the
obligation in accordance to Article 195 of the Family Code of the Philippines to
financially support the daily and medical needs of her mother, plaintiff Marcosa.

7. Plaintiff Marcosa tirelessly raised and took care of defendant Winnie

since birth. She never abandoned her all thoughtout of her life. Consenquently, the
Honorable Supreme Court pronounced in this case 4 that “a mother is entitled to
support from the child who later became well off financially as long such mother
never abandoned her and took care of her and had not relinquished all parental
claims5.”

8. Equally applicable is Article 199 of the Family Code of the

Philippines which states that:

“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 brothers and sisters.”

9. Since the former two (2) common law partners of plaintiff Marcosa
and her daughter plaintiff Michelle are incapable of financially supporting her

3
Photos of some of the restaurants of defendant Winnie as Annexes “B” to “B-8”
4
Castillo vs. Castillo, CA 39 O. G. 968
5
Page 793 of Persons and Family Relations by Ernesto L. Pineda 2022 Edition
medical and daily needs, the obligation to give support rests on defendant Winnie
pursuant to the above quoted provision.

10. It is worthy to quote the illustration made by the well respected and
eminent author Ernesto L. Pineda in his best selling book entitled “Persons and
Family Relations Book 2022 Edition” which is pertinent to this case in the
following manner:

“1. A wife is in need of support. She has a poor husband, a rich son,
a poor father and a rich brother. From whom shall she demand
support?

Answer: Because of the financial incapactiy of the husband, she

can demand first from the son. In the absence of the son, the
father. But since the father has no means, seh can demand from her
right brother.” (emphasis supplied)

11. Absolutely, plaintiff Marcosa can demand support from her well off
daughter, defendant Winnie.

12. Furthermore, plaintiff Michelle may demand support from defendant

Winnie for their mother pursuant to Article 200 of the Family Code of the
Philippines which reads as follows:

“Art. 200. When the obligation to give support falls upon two
or more persons, the payment of the same shall be divided
between them in proportion to the resources of each.
However, in case of urgent need and by special circumstances,
the judge may order only one of them to furnish the support
provisionally, without prejudice to his right to claim from the other
obligors the share due from them.
When two or more recipients at the same time claim support
from one and the same person legally obliged to give it, should the
latter not have sufficient means to satisfy all claims, the order
established in the preceding article shall be followed, unless the
concurrent obligees should be the spouse and a child subject to
parental authority, in which case the child shall be preferred.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. It is evident that plaintiff Michelle may legally demand support for
their mother from defendant Winnie.

14. Thus, the Honorable Supreme Court explained the rationale of the
Order of Liability for Support in the following manner:

“The closer the relationship of the relatives the stronger the tie that
binds them. Thus, the obligation to support is imposed first upon
 the shoulders of the closer relatives and only in their default is the
obligation moved to the next nearer relatives and so on6”

PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO

CLAIM MORAL DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES

15. With regard to the claim for moral damages and attorney's fees,
plaintiffs would like to emphasize that the act of defendant Winnie of willfully
and maliciously failing to provide support essential to the dwelling, medical and
daily sustenance of plaintiff Marcosa and contribute her share with plaintiff
Michelle the above mentioned expenses without any basis is a clear indicia of bad
faith.

16. Plaintiffs were so worried and it caused them tremendous sleepless

nights and worries to look for any source to finance dwelling, medical and daily
sustenance of plaintiff Marcosa which defendant Winnie has legal obligation to do
so.

17. Plaintiffs filed the complaint in order to seek justice and satisfaction
and for this, they were forced to litigate and engage the services of counsel. Due to
circumstances, plaintiffs suffered intense emotional distress, physical suffering,
serious anxiety and wounded feelings. Defendant Winnie therefore must be held
liable for moral damages and exemplary damages in order to set the case as
precedent and deter others in committing analogous acts as those committed by
her.

18. For clear bad faith of defendant Winnie in their dealings to plaintiffs,
defendant is certainly liable for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

IV. PRAYER

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this

instant memorandum be NOTED and ACCEPTED and thereafter, judgment be
rendered against defendant ordering the latter to pay:

1. Plaintiff Michelle half (1/2) of the total amount of the hospital expenses
incurred at PGH, World Citi Medical Center and Saint Jude Facility in
the amount of Three Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Pesos
(Php324,000.000);

2. Plaintiff Michelle half (1/2) of the total amount of the medical and
essential needs from the month of April to December 2021 and January
to August 2022 amounting to Five Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Pesos
(Php584,000.00);
6
Patricio vs. Dario III, 507 SCRA 448
3. MONTHLY SUPPORT for plaintiff Marcosa in the amount of Sixty
Thousand Pesos (Php60,000.00) to cover her board and lodging fee and
essential and medical needs;

4. Two Hundred Thousand (Php200,000.00) by way of Attorney’s fees and

costs of litigation amounting to Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php300,000.00);

5. One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) by way of moral damages and Five

Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) by way of exemplary
damages;

6. Litigation costs;

7. Ordering defendant to visit monthly Plaintiff Marcosa; and

8. Any and all reliefs the court finds just and equitable.

Marikina City for Antipolo City. January 18, 2023

VMM LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Unit B 2nd Floor, First Building
C & B Circle Mall, Liwasan Kalayaan
Marikina Heights, Marikina City
vmmlawfirm@gmail.com
manlapazlawoffice@gmail.com
02-532-0661 0918 9622944 09390372875

ATTY. VICTOR M. MANLAPAZ

Roll of Attorneys No. 50441
IBP Lifetime Member Roll No. 018550 1/12/18
PTR No. 8838921; 01/6/22; Marikina City
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0008972; 04/14/25
vic_manlapaz77@yahoo.com