Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

Support pendente lite may be granted to a claimed natural child on the basis of prima facie evidence of paternity, even though the judgment compelling acknowledgment has not yet become final and executory due to a pending appeal.

Laureano Garcia, a minor suing through his mother and later guardian, claimed to be the natural child of Simeon Garcia. Philippine law gives the right of support to acknowledged natural children, making acknowledgment the juridical predicate for a support obligation.

Laureano Garcia, a minor assisted by his mother, filed a complaint on February 4, 1953 in the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Civil Case No. 5309, seeking acknowledgment as the natural child of Simeon Garcia. After trial, the Cavite court on December 15, 1956 rendered judgment in his favor. Simeon Garcia appealed that acknowledgment judgment to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 20513 and remained pending.

Thereafter, on September 4, 1957, petitioner, through his guardian, instituted a separate action in the same Court of First Instance, Civil Case No. 6166, praying for support and for support pendente lite from Simeon Garcia on the basis of the December 15, 1956 decision. On December 10, 1957, the lower court granted support pendente lite in the amount of P100.00 monthly from September 1957. To prevent enforcement, Simeon Garcia filed a petition for certiorari with injunction before the Court of Appeals, CA-G.R. No. 22428.

The Court of Appeals granted Simeon Garcia's petition, holding the December 10, 1957 order null and void on the ground that the decision requiring acknowledgment had not yet been affirmed on appeal. After denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. No additional factual findings beyond the existence of the favorable but appealed acknowledgment judgment and the issuance of the temporary support order were material to the ruling.

• Nature of Support Pendente Lite: Petitioner argued that support pendente lite being in the nature of a temporary relief, final judgment as to the relationship of natural father and child is not essential.
• Prima Facie Evidence Sufficient: Petitioner maintained that only prima facie evidence indicative of such family relation is necessary, citing Sanchez vs. Zulueta.
• Authoritative Declaration: Petitioner argued that even an authoritative declaration would be sufficient, citing Francisco vs. Zulueta.
• Commencement of Obligation: Petitioner maintained that the obligation to support begins after one is compelled to acknowledge by decree of the court, citing Crisolo vs. Hon. Macadaeg.

• Support Pendente Lite Pending Appeal: Whether petitioner may be given support pendente lite while the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cavite requiring his acknowledgment as the natural child of respondent Simeon Garcia is pending appeal before the Court of Appeals.

• Support Pendente Lite Pending Appeal: Yes. Support pendente lite was allowed, the non-final acknowledgment judgment constituting at least prima facie evidence of the right to support and warranting exercise of trial court discretion pending appeal.

• Support Pendente Lite Pending Appeal: Although the law gives the right of support to acknowledged natural children and Laureano Garcia had not yet been actually acknowledged because the decision had not become executory, confirmation of the order of recognition on appeal would relate back to the date of the original decision. For that reason, directing the father to give support pending appeal lay within the trial court's power and discretion. Denial until affirmance on appeal would, in view of the poverty of the child, be a travesty of justice where at least prima facie evidence of the right to support already existed by virtue of the favorable trial court judgment.

• Support pendente lite on prima facie filiation — Temporary support during litigation does not require final judgment establishing paternity or filiation; prima facie evidence indicative of the family relation, such as a trial court judgment compelling acknowledgment even if appealed, suffices to justify the order.
• Relation-back of affirmed recognition — Confirmation on appeal of an order of recognition relates back to the date of the original decision, supporting the exercise of discretion to order support while the appeal is pending.
• Discretion to prevent injustice to needy child — Where poverty of the child is involved, refusal of support until the acknowledgment judgment is sustained on appeal would be a travesty of justice; the trial court may act within its power and discretion to grant temporary support.

• "Although the law gives the right of support to acknowledged natural children, and although Laureano Garcia has not yet been actually acknowledged because the decision has not yet become 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 the appeal." — States the ratio decidendi linking the relation-back principle to discretionary temporary support despite non-finality.
• "Indeed, there may be instances where, in view of the poverty of the child, it would be a travesty of justice to refuse him support until the decision of the judge is sustained on appeal." — Articulates the equitable justification for allowing support pendente lite during appeal.
• "There being at least prima facie evidence of the child's right to support, the Cavite court acted within its power and discretion." — Defines the evidentiary threshold sustaining the trial court's temporary support order.

• Sanchez vs. Zulueta, 68 Phil. 112 — Cited by petitioner for the proposition that only prima facie evidence indicative of the family relation is necessary for support pendente lite.
• Francisco vs. Zulueta, 61 Phil. 757 — Cited by petitioner for the proposition that even an authoritative declaration would be sufficient to support temporary relief.
• Crisolo vs. Hon. Macadaeg, L-7071, Promulgated April 29, 1954 — Cited by petitioner for the proposition that the obligation to support begins after one is compelled to acknowledge by decree of the court.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur. Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part.