San Juan vs. Valenzuela

A certiorari attack on an order fixing support pendente lite is rendered moot and academic where the obligor voluntarily undertakes to pay the accrued support in a manner approved by the trial court, the fixing order being interlocutory and subject to modification upon changed conditions affecting ability to pay.

Buenaventura San Juan and Dorotea Mejia were married on October 2, 1973. San Juan had a prior and subsisting marriage with one Isabel Bandin, a circumstance later invoked to nullify his subsequent marriage to Mejia. Mejia claimed support for herself and the two minor children born of the union, Rachel San Juan and Jeffrey San Juan.

Buenaventura San Juan and Dorotea Mejia were married on October 2, 1973. Two minor children, Rachel San Juan and Jeffrey San Juan, were born of the union. On February 25, 1981, Mejia filed Civil Case No. 8874-P before the Court of First Instance of Rizal to obtain support for herself and the two children.

Thereafter, on September 16, 1981, the same court declared the Mejia-San Juan marriage null and void on the ground of a prior and subsisting marriage between San Juan and one Isabel Bandin. After issues were joined in the support case, Mejia moved for support pendente lite. On December 24, 1981, respondent Judge Manuel E. Valenzuela granted the motion pursuant to Section 5, Rule 61 of the New Rules of Court, fixing support at P2,500.00 a month commencing January 1, 1982, payable to Mejia on or before the 5th day of each month until final adjudication, without prejudice to judgment for support in arrears if warranted after trial.

San Juan moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting the March 16, 1982 certiorari petition. While the petition was pending, San Juan filed a manifestation dated June 17, 1982 proposing to pay the P15,000.00 support accrued from January to June 1982 in three equal installments, the first upon court approval and the balance within two months thereafter, and asking that monthly support be reduced to P1,000.00 as the P2,500.00 amount was allegedly beyond his means. The trial court approved the installment scheme; according to Mejia, the request for reduction remained unacted upon because the respondent Judge had left for abroad.

• Proportionality to Means: Petitioner argued that the P2,500.00 monthly support pendente lite was grossly disproportionate to his means and beyond his ability to pay, later asserting that only P1,000.00 a month was affordable.
• Effect of Nullity of Marriage: Petitioner maintained that he was not obliged to support respondent Mejia because their marriage had been declared null and void.
• Lack of Evidence on Resources: Petitioner argued that no evidence was presented as to his present resources to justify the amount fixed.

• Mootness: Whether the petition for certiorari assailing the support pendente lite order was rendered moot and academic by petitioner's subsequent manifestation and its approval by the trial court.
• Modifiability of Support Pendente Lite: Whether the December 24, 1981 order fixing support pendente lite at P2,500.00 monthly is final or subject to modification based on changing conditions affecting ability to pay.

• Mootness: Yes. Dismissal was warranted, petitioner's willingness to pay accrued support in the manner manifested and approved below having left no live controversy.
• Modifiability of Support Pendente Lite: The order is not final. It remains subject to modification depending on changing conditions affecting the obligor's ability to pay, to be resolved on evidence at a proper hearing below.

• Mootness: Petitioner's June 17, 1982 manifestation proposing to settle P15,000.00 representing January to June 1982 support in three equal installments, and the trial court's approval thereof, constituted voluntary submission to the challenged support obligation in the manner indicated. Because the relief sought through certiorari — annulment of the duty to pay pendente lite — was thus overtaken by compliance, no practical relief could still be granted and dismissal for mootness followed.
• Modifiability of Support Pendente Lite: The factual dispute over whether P2,500.00 was beyond petitioner's means was properly for the lower court on evidence at a proper hearing. The December 24 order was interlocutory rather than final, modifiable with conditions affecting ability to pay pursuant to Article 297 of the Civil Code, as illustrated by Gurayet vs. Hashim.

• Mootness in certiorari — A case becomes moot and academic when subsequent events, such as voluntary compliance or approval of a compromise payment scheme, leave no actual controversy capable of practical relief; adjudication is then withheld and dismissal ordered.
• Interlocutory character and modifiability of support pendente lite — An order fixing support pendente lite is not final in character and may be modified depending on changing conditions affecting the obligor's ability to pay, with the factual issue of means resolved by the lower court on evidence at a proper hearing.

• "Unquestionably, the petitioner's willingness to pay the amount of support pendente lite in the mariner indicated in his manifestation, and the approval thereof by the respondent Judge have rendered this petition moot and academic." — States the ratio for dismissal, grounding mootness on voluntary undertaking and trial court approval during pendency of certiorari.
• "The order of December 24 fixing the amount of support pendente lite is not final in character in the sense that it can be the subject of modification, depending on the changing conditions affecting the ability of the obligor to pay the amount fixed for support." — Defines the controlling doctrine on the provisional, modifiable nature of support pendente lite and remits the means issue to evidence below.

• Gurayet vs. Hashim, 47 Phil. 84 — Cited alongside Article 297 of the Civil Code as authority for the modifiable, non-final character of support orders dependent on changing conditions affecting ability to pay.

• Section 5, Rule 61, New Rules of Court — Invoked by the trial court as basis for granting support pendente lite after giving due regard to the necessities of Mejia and her children Rachel San Juan and Jeffrey San Juan.
• Article 297, Civil Code — Relied upon for the rule that the support order is not final and may be modified according to changing conditions affecting the obligor's ability to pay.

Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.