Mangonon vs. Court of Appeals

A grandparent is subsidiarily liable for support pendente lite upon proof of the parents' financial incapacity, and the obligor's option to maintain the recipient in the family dwelling is unavailable when a moral obstacle exists due to strained relations arising from the litigation.

Ma. Belen Mangonon and Federico Delgado contracted marriage in 1975 while underage, which was subsequently annulled. Twins Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel were born within 300 days of the annulment. Mangonon and her second husband raised the twins in the United States. As the twins reached college age, their educational expenses exceeded their mother's financial capacity and their putative father refused to provide support, prompting demands upon the father and his wealthy grandfather, Francisco Delgado, which went unheeded.

• Marriage and Birth: Mangonon and Federico married in February 1975; the marriage was annulled in August 1975 due to lack of parental consent. Twins Rica and Rina were born in March 1976, within 300 days of the annulment.
• Financial Incapacity: Rica and Rina were accepted to US universities requiring approximately US$22,000 each annually. Mangonon earned US$1,200 monthly after taxes and was forced to secure federal loans to defray educational costs. The twins also secured federal loans and work-study assistance after their petitions for Federal Student Aid were rejected.
• Federico's Circumstances: Federico denied paternity, claiming absence during the period of conception. He declared a monthly income of P40,000 but presented no income tax returns. He admitted owning no properties; his car and residence were owned by his father's corporation, Citadel Commercial, Inc.
• Francisco's Circumstances: Francisco Delgado is the majority stockholder and chairman of several corporations engaged in gasoline stations, real estate, shipping, and telecommunications, possessing substantial resources locally and internationally. He acknowledged prior financial gifts to the twins as acts of Christian charity.

• Incapacity of Parents: Records demonstrate both parents lack the financial means to support the twins' college education, shifting liability to the grandfather.
• Grandfather's Liability: Under Article 199 of the Family Code, the obligation to provide support devolves upon the nearest ascendant in default of the parents, and Francisco possesses ample financial resources.
• Inadequate Amount: The trial court's award of P5,000 per child monthly constituted grave abuse of discretion, being entirely disproportionate to the twins' educational necessities and the grandfather's wealth.

• Primary Liability of Parents: Under Article 199 of the Family Code, the obligation to support rests principally on those more closely related to the recipient; the order of liability is not concurrent.
• Option to Provide Support: Pursuant to Article 204 of the Family Code, the obligor has the option to fulfill the obligation by receiving and maintaining the claimant in the family dwelling, which Francisco asserted by proposing the twins study in the Philippines.
• Applicability of Family Code: As the twins are US citizens, the Family Code provisions on support do not apply, invoking Article 15 of the Civil Code.
• Denial of Filiation: Federico denied siring the twins, asserting absence during the period of conception, and claimed any prior financial assistance was mere Christian charity by his father.

• Subsidiary Liability: Whether the obligation to give support pendente lite devolves upon the grandfather upon proof of the parents' financial incapacity.
• Option to Maintain in Dwelling: Whether the obligor-grandfather can invoke the option under Article 204 of the Family Code to maintain the claimants in his family dwelling.
• Amount of Support: Whether the lower courts committed grave abuse of discretion in fixing the amount of support pendente lite.

• Subsidiary Liability: The obligation to give support devolves upon the nearest ascendant in default of the parents. The lower courts' reliance on Federico's unsubstantiated income constituted a misapprehension of facts, an exception to the rule binding the Supreme Court to lower court factual findings. Federico owned no property, and Mangonon's reliance on federal loans proved her incapacity. Accordingly, Francisco, the nearest ascendant with substantial corporate and real estate holdings, was held subsidiarily liable.
• Option to Maintain in Dwelling: The option under Article 204 cannot be availed of when a moral obstacle exists. The filing of the suit and the respondents' denial of filiation strained the relationship, making it morally difficult for the twins to reside in the grandfather's Philippine dwelling.
• Amount of Support: The amount of support must be proportionate to the resources of the giver and the necessities of the recipient. The grandfather was held liable for half of the school expenses. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the exact amount and arrearages from the time the twins entered college until they finished their studies.

• Support Pendente Lite — Provisional remedy allowing temporary support prior to final judgment without requiring a full delve into the merits; courts need only determine prima facie entitlement based on affidavits or documentary evidence.
• Order of Liability for Support — Under Article 199 of the Family Code, the obligation to give support rests principally on those more closely related to the recipient; remote relatives are liable only if the claimant proves that closer relatives lack the means to provide support.
• Option of the Obligor — Under Article 204 of the Family Code, the obligor may choose to pay the allowance or receive and maintain the recipient in the family dwelling. The second option is unavailable when a moral or legal obstacle exists, such as strained relations resulting from the litigation and denial of filiation.

• "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."
• "The second option cannot be availed of in case there are circumstances, legal or moral, which should be considered... Given all these, we could not see Rica and Rina moving back here in the Philippines in the company of those who have disowned them."

• Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 150-A Phil. 996 (1972) — Followed for the principle that support pendente lite is provisional and does not require a full determination of the merits.
• The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126850, 28 April 2004 — Followed for the recognized exceptions to the rule that the Supreme Court is bound by the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court, specifically when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.
• Amurao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83942, 29 December 1988 — Followed for the propriety of awarding support pendente lite in arrears.
• Francisco v. Zandueta, 61 Phil. 752 (1935) — Cited by respondent for the proposition that legitimacy must be established before support can be claimed, though the Court found prima facie proof of filiation sufficient for support pendente lite.

• Rule 61, Sections 1 and 4, Rules of Court — Governs the application and grant of support pendente lite, requiring the court to provisionally determine facts and fix the amount based on the applicant's necessities and the adverse party's resources.
• Article 199, Family Code — Establishes the order of liability for support, devolving the obligation upon ascendants in the nearest degree in default of the parents.
• Article 204, Family Code — Grants the obligor the option to fulfill the support obligation by paying the allowance or maintaining the recipient in the family dwelling, unless a moral or legal obstacle exists.
• Article 201, Family Code — Mandates that the amount of support be proportionate to the resources or means of the giver and the necessities of the recipient.
• Article 15, Civil Code — Provides that laws relating to family rights and duties are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad; its applicability to US citizen petitioners was left for the trial court's resolution in the main case.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.