SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE

Application/Comment
Application
When filed: Upon commencement of action or anytime
prior to the judgment or final order
Form: Must be verified
Content: (a) grounds for the claim; (b) financial
condition of the parties; (c) affidavits, depositions or
other authentic documents
Comment
When filed: Within 5 days from receipt of the
Application or such other period fixed by the court
Form: Must be verified
Content: (a) Grounds resisting the claim; and (b)
affidavits, depositions or other authentic documents in
support thereof.
 Hearing
When conducted: Not more than 3
days after comment filed or after
expiration of the period for its filing.
Proof required: Facts must be proven
through affidavits and authentic
documents (evidence on motions).
Support pendente lite cannot be
issued ex-parte.
Determination of Probable Outcome

The court shall determine provisionally the

pertinent facts, and shall render such
orders as justice and equity may require,
having the regard to the probable
outcome of the case and such other
circumstances as may aid in the proper
resolution of the question involved.
Based on the evidence, the court makes a
determination if the applicant has a right
to support.
 Enforcement
Section 5. Enforcement of order. If the adverse
party fails to comply with an order granting support
pendente lite, the court shall, motu proprio or upon
motion; issue an order of execution against him,
without prejudice to his liability for contempt. (6a)
When the person ordered to give support pendente
lite refuses or fails to do so, any third person who
furnished that support to the applicant may, after
due notice and hearing in the same case obtain a
writ of execution to enforce his right of
reimbursement against the person ordered to
provide such support. (h)
 Criminal Cases: Support Pendente
Lite
Section 6. Support in criminal cases. In criminal
actions where the civil liability includes support for the
offspring as a consequence of the crime and the civil
aspect thereof has not been waived, reserved and
instituted prior to its filing, the accused may be ordered
to provide support pendente lite to the child born to the
offended party allegedly because of the crime.
The application therefor may be filed successively by
the offended party, her parents, grandparents or
guardian and the State in the corresponding criminal
case during its pendency, in accordance with the
procedure established under this Rule. (n)
 Restitution
Section 7. Restitution. When the judgment or final
order of the court finds that the person who has been
providing support pendente lite is not liable therefor, it
shall order the recipient thereof to return to the former
the amounts already paid with legal interest from the
dates of actual payment, without prejudice to the right
of the recipient to obtain reimbursement in a separate
action from the person legally obliged to give the
support. Should the recipient fail to reimburse said
amounts, the person who provided the same may
likewise seek reimbursement thereof in a separate
action from the person legally obliged to give such
support. (n)
 Judgments For Support
Section 4, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court clearly states that,
unless ordered by the trial court, judgments in actions for
support are immediately executory and cannot be stayed
by an appeal. This is an exception to the general rule which
provides that the taking of an appeal stays the execution of
the judgment and that advance executions will only be
allowed if there are urgent reasons therefor. The aforesaid
provision peremptorily calls for immediate execution of all
judgments for support and makes no distinction between
those which are the subject of an appeal and those which
are not. To consider then petitioner's argument that there
should be good reasons for the advance execution of a
judgment would violate the clear and explicit language of
the rule mandating immediate execution. (Gan vs. Reyes,
G.R. No. 145527 May 28, 2002)
Can Support Pendente Lite be awarded while
the case is on appeal? (Garcia vs. CA, G.R.No.
L-14758, March 30, 1962)
FACTS: A minor, assisted by his mother filed a suit
for acknowledgement as a natural child. The minor
won in the lower court. The respondent appealed to
the CA. Upon motion of the minor, the lower court
awarded support pendente lite while the case is on
appeal.
HELD: Although the decision has not yet become
final and executory, still as the confirmation of the
order of recognition may be said to relate back to
the date of the original decision, it lies within the
discretion of the trial court to direct the father to
give support pending appeal. It would be a travesty
of justice to refuse him support until the decision is
sustained on appeal there being prima facie
evidence of his right to support.
NEPOMUCENO vs. LOPEZ, G.R. No.
181258 March 18, 2010
Laws, Rules, and Jurisprudence Establishing Filiation

The relevant provisions of the Family Code provide as follows:

ART. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence
as legitimate children.
xxxx

ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:

(1)
The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or

(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by
the parent concerned.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:

(2)
The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or

(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

I hereby undertake to give and provide financial support in the amount of P1,500.00 every fifteen
and thirtieth day of each month for a total of P3,000.00 a month starting Aug. 15, 1999, to
Ahrbencel Ann Lopez, presently in the custody of her mother Araceli Lopez without the necessity
of demand, subject to adjustment later depending on the needs of the child and my income
NOT AN ADMISSION OF LEGITIMATE FILIATION.
Adultery: Defense Against Actions
For Support
Adultery on the part of the wife is a
valid defense against an action for
support. (Quintana vs. Lerma, 24 Phil
285)
 Rule If Adultery Is Alleged as
Defense
The court must conduct a hearing
and allow the parties to present their
respective evidences on the
allegation of adultery. (Quintana vs.
Lerma, supra)
Adultery Must Not Only Be
Alleged But Also Proved
The wife asked for support pendente lite for herself
and her 3 children. The husband opposed alleging
adultery.
The application for support pendente lite was set for
hearing and submitted for resolution on the basis of
the pleadings and the documents attached thereto by
the parties.
The adultery of the wife must be established by
competent evidence. Here, the husband failed to
submit proof of adultery. Mere allegation of adultery
will not bar the award of support pendente lite.
(Reyes vs. Hon. Luciano, GR No. L-48219, Feb. 28, 1979)
 Support Pendente Lite in Legal
Separation
Art. 49 of the Civil Code provides
During the pendency of the action and
in the absence of adequate provisions in
a written agreement between the
spouses, the Court shall provide for the
support of the spouses and the custody
and support of their common children.
(Art. 292 of Old Civil Code)
Does this mean that support pendente
lite should be given as a matter of right
after legal separation is filed?
Support Pendente Lite in Legal
Separation
The law contemplates the pendency of a
court action and inferentially, at least, a
prima facie showing that the action will
prosper. For if the action is to be groundless,
the mere filing thereof will not necessarily
set the law in operation. This is also the
sense of Sec. 5 Rule 61 which requires the
Court to make a provisional finding of the
probable outcome of the case. (Lerma vs.
CA, G.R. No. L-33352, December 20, 1974)
 Effect of Appeal
A judgment in a complaint for
acknowledgment as a natural child was
rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The putative
father appealed the judgment to the CA.
May support pendente lite be awarded in the
meantime?
Yes. There being at least prima facie evidence
of the childs right to support, the court acted
within its power and discretion. (Garcia vs CA,
GR No. L-14758, March 30, 1962)
 Evidence Required
A court may temporarily grant support
pendente lite prior to the rendition of
judgment. 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.
 Evidence Required
There is prima facie proof of filiation as
shown by the following:
a) Constant communication with their grandfather
Francisco.
b) In letters of grandfather to the children he used
the surname Delgado
c) In one letter he extended financial help of US
$1,000
d) Federico, the father gave the twins a treat to
Hongkong.
(Mangonon vs. CA, G.R. No. 125041, June 30, 2006)
Grounds for Appointment of A
Receiver
(a) When it appears from the verified
application, and such other proof as the
court may require, that the party applying
for the appointment of a receiver has an
interest in the property or fund which is
the subject of the action or proceeding,
and that such property or fund is in
danger of being lost, removed, or
materially injured unless a receiver be
appointed to administer and preserve it;
 No Danger To Property In
this Case
A petition for receivership under Section 1(b), Rule 59 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the property or fund
subject of the action is in danger of being lost, removed, or
materially injured, necessitating its protection or
preservation. Its object is the prevention of imminent
danger to the property. If the action does not require such
protection or preservation, the remedy is not receivership.
In this case, Fidelas main gripe is that Evelina and Aida
deprived her of her share of the lands produce. She does
not claim that the land or its productive capacity would
disappear or be wasted if not entrusted to a receiver. Nor
does Fidela claim that the land has been materially injured,
necessitating its protection and preservation. Because
receivership is a harsh remedy that can be granted only in
extreme situations, Fidela must prove a clear right to its
issuance. But she has not. Indeed, in none of the other
cases she filed against Evelina and Aida has that remedy
Grounds for Appointment of A
Receiver
(b) When it appears in an action by
the mortgagee for the foreclosure of
a mortgage that the property is in
danger of being wasted or dissipated
or materially injured, and that its
value is probably insufficient to
discharge the mortgage debt, or that
the parties have so stipulated in the
contract of mortgage;
Grounds for Appointment of A
Receiver
(c) After judgment, to preserve the
property during the pendency of an
appeal, or to dispose of it according
to the judgment, or to aid execution
when the execution has been
returned unsatisfied or the judgment
obligor refuses to apply his property
in satisfaction of the judgment, or
otherwise to carry the judgment into
effect;
Grounds for Appointment of A
Receiver
(d) Whenever in other cases it
appears that the appointment of a
receiver is the most convenient and
feasible means of preserving,
administering, or disposing of the
property in litigation.
Does the Posting A Counter-
bond Prevent the Appointment
of A Receiver?
Not necessarily
Petitioners advance the issue that the receivership should not be
recalled simply because the adverse party offers to post a
counterbond. if we entertain the issue, the contention is
nevertheless devoid of merit. The assailed CA decision supported the
discharge of the receiver with several reasons including the posting
of the counterbond. While the CA made a statement that the trial
court should have discharged the appointed receiver on the basis of
the proposed counterbond, such opinion does not jibe with the
import of Sec. 3, Rule 59. The rule states that the "application may
be denied or the receiver discharged." In statutory construction, the
word "may" has always been construed as permissive. If the intent is
to make it mandatory or ministerial for the trial court to order the
recall of the receiver upon the offer to post a counterbond, then the
court should have used the word "shall." Thus, the trial court has to
consider the posting of the counterbond in addition to other reasons
presented by the offeror why the receivership has to be set aside.
(Vivares vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 155408, February 13, 2008)