[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
215 views2 pages

Legal Ruling on Support Obligations

This document summarizes a 1954 Supreme Court case regarding support obligations. The case involved a father, Alfredo Javier, who was ordered to pay monthly support of P60 to his wife and son, Alfredo Jr. The father appealed on several grounds. The Court held that the judge did not err in ordering execution of the support judgment pending appeal. One reason given was that delaying support could unduly delay the son's education. The Court also cited the Civil Code provision requiring support for education beyond the age of majority. It therefore upheld support for the son even though he had reached the age of 21.

Uploaded by

Edgar Joshua Timbang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
215 views2 pages

Legal Ruling on Support Obligations

This document summarizes a 1954 Supreme Court case regarding support obligations. The case involved a father, Alfredo Javier, who was ordered to pay monthly support of P60 to his wife and son, Alfredo Jr. The father appealed on several grounds. The Court held that the judge did not err in ordering execution of the support judgment pending appeal. One reason given was that delaying support could unduly delay the son's education. The Court also cited the Civil Code provision requiring support for education beyond the age of majority. It therefore upheld support for the son even though he had reached the age of 21.

Uploaded by

Edgar Joshua Timbang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
You are on page 1/ 2

Alfredo Javier vs. Hon. Antonio G. Lucero, G.R. No.

L-6706, March 29, 1954


BENGZON, J.:
LEGAL DOCTRINE: Rules on Support
FACTS:

 Alfredo Javier and Salud Arca had begotten a son before they got married,
named Alfredo Jr. After the celebration of marriage, Alfredo Javier went to US
since he was listed as US Navy. The mother and Alfredo Jr. went to live with her
parents while the husband was in US. When the relationship between the
spouses becomes strained, husband petitioned for divorce before State of
Alabama. After the decree was issued, Alfredo Sr. subsequently married twice
(having been divorced with the former before celebration of subsequent
marriage).

 An action for alimony was filed where respondent Judge ordered the father to
give a monthly allowance of P60 to his wife and son. The father filed notice of
appeal questioning the status of the wife; second, the fact that his son was over
21 years old making him no longer entitled to be supported and third, decision is
vague and silent in relation to granting the son entitlement to support even if
over 21 years old for purposes of completing his education/training for some
profession, trade or vocation. Nevertheless, the judge directed the father to pay
the monthly pensions notwithstanding pendency of the appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Judge erred in ordering the execution of his judgment
pending appeal.
HELD/RULING:

 NO. The order of the court directing petitioner to pay monthly pensions to his
wife and son notwithstanding the pendency of his appeal having been issued
before "the record on appeal was submitted, the court did not exceed its
jurisdiction in issuing the same.

 One of the good reasons for the immediate execution of judgment pending
appeal is where the education of the person to be supported would be unduly
delayed if financial assistance is to be rendered only at the termination of the
appeal. Acquittal of husband of a bigamy charge for lack of criminal intent is no
different from an acquittal on reasonable doubt which would not be a ground for
forfeiture of his wife's right to support.
 Under the new Civil Code, Article 290 support also includes the education of the
person to be supported “until he completes his education or training for some
profession, trade or vocation even beyond the age of majority” and on the basis
of this article support was granted to Alfredo Javier Junior.

 Moreover, “while it is true that plaintiff Alfredo Javier Junior, who was born on
December 2, 1931, has reached the age of majority on December 2, 1952, yet,
under the last part of article 290 of the new Civil Code, support may be given
him even beyond the age of majority in order to enable him to complete his
education, for some trade or profession.”

You might also like