Support Pendente Lite

CLED - ASSIGNMENT
Page 1 of 4
ASSIGNMENT:
I. Support Pendente Lite (definition, rationale and purpose)

based on the law and jurisprudence.
II. Support Pendente Lite in other jurisdictions (laws,
jurisprudence, and theories, existing studies)
III. Applicability of Support Pendente Lite in VAWC cases
IV. Justify why Support Pendente Lite be filed along with the
complaint for VAWC instead of separately applying for
Protection Order with Application of Support Pendente Lite
I. Support Pendente Lite (definition, rationale and

purpose) based on the law and jurisprudence.
Support Pendente Lite is one of among the provisional remedies

provided in Revised Rules on Civil Procedure which grants a
person entitled to support an amount enough for his “sustenance,
dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and
transportation” while the action is pending in court. This
provisional remedy is based on the Article 49 of the NCC, stating
that:
Art. 49. 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. The Court shall give paramount
consideration to the moral and material welfare of said
children and their choice of the parent with whom they
wish to remain as provided to in Title IX. It shall also
provide for appropriate visitation rights of the other
parent. (n)
In determining what encompasses the Support, Article 49 of the

NCC provides:
Art. 194. Support comprises everything

indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical
attendance, education and transportation, in keeping
with the financial capacity of the family.
The education of the person entitled to be supported

referred to in the preceding paragraph shall include his
CLED - ASSIGNMENT
Page 2 of 4
schooling or training for some profession, trade or

vocation, even beyond the age of majority.
Transportation shall include expenses in going to and
from school, or to and from place of work. (290a)
Considering that Sec. 1 of Rule 61, Civil Procedure allows the

filing of application for support pendente lite at the
commencement of the proper action or proceeding, or at any time
prior to the judgment or final order, support pendente lite purpose
is to prevent the damages that may be brought by the delay of or
not giving the support of which the adverse party is obliged to
provide. The money and property adjudged for support and
education should and must be given presently and without delay
because if it had to wait the final judgment, the children may in
the meantime have suffered because of lack of food or have
missed and lost years in school because of lack of funds. One
cannot delay the payment of such funds for support and education
for the reason that if paid long afterwards, however much the
accumulated amount, its payment cannot cure the evil and repair
the damage caused. The children with such belated payment for
support and education cannot act as gluttons and eat voraciously
and unwisely, afterwards, to make up for the years of hunger and
starvation. Neither may they enrol in several classes and schools
and take up numerous subjects all at once to make up for the
years they missed in school, due to non-payment of the funds
when needed.1
II. Support Pendente Lite in other jurisdictions (laws,

jurisprudence, and theories, existing studies)
In the case of Gorayeb vs. Hashim, the defendant obtain a

decree of divorce in the State of Nevada, claiming that said decree
had had the effect of dissolving the bonds of matrimony between
himself and the plaintiff and of relieving him from all liability to pay
the pension claimed including the alimony pendent lite. In so
ruling, the Court held:
From what has been said it follows that the

objections interposed by the plaintiff to the manner in
which the defendant seeks to avail himself of his alleged
1
Gan vs. Reyes, 382 SCRA 357, May 28, 2002
CLED - ASSIGNMENT
Page 3 of 4
decree of divorce are not well taken; but for reasons

already stated, the decree itself is of no force in this
jurisdiction. It supplies therefore no justification for the
defendant's failure to pay alimony.2
Furthermore, in the same case, the Court cited an excerpt in

American Jurisprudence defining the alimony pendente lite:
It must be remembered that alimony is an allowance

for support and is fixed with a view to enable the party
entitled thereto to confront obligations for current
necessities. The demands of to-day and tomorrow
cannot always be satisfactorily met from the resources
of yesterday, and it seems inconsistent with the very
nature of the obligation to offset against claims for
current alimony sums of money that have been
improperly taken under previous orders. It has
accordingly been held by American courts that excessive
payments made under valid, though erroneous, prior
orders cannot be offset against claims for current
alimony (19 C. J., p. 226; Lishey vs. Lishey, 6 Lea
[Tenn.], 418; Johnson vs. Johnson [Tenn. Ch. A.], 49 S.
W., 305). Spanish jurisprudence appears to confirm this
view (6 Manresa, Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, p. 80; 20
Jur. Civ., Recursos y Competencias, p. 566). This
doctrine would seem to be applicable with full force so
far as regards the right to the amount strictly necessary
to maintain respectable existence. In the case before us
the amount accruing to the plaintiff is only P100 per
month, which is an exceedingly modest amount,
considered from any point of view.3
In Bradford v. Futrell, appellant sought review of the

decision of the Circuit Court which found him in arrears with his
child support payments and entered a decree in favor of appellee
wife. He complained that in determining the arrearage figure, he
should have been allowed full credit for all money and items of
personal property given by him to the children themselves, even
though he referred to them as gifts. The Court of Appeals of
Maryland ruled that in the suit to determine amount of arrears due
the divorced wife under decree for support of minor children, the
husband (appellant) was not entitled to credit for checks which he
2
Gorayeb vs. Hashim, 50 Phil. 22, No. 25577 March 3, 1927
3
Gorayeb vs. Hashim, 50 Phil. 22, No. 25577 March 3, 1927
CLED - ASSIGNMENT
Page 4 of 4
had clearly designated as gifts, nor was he entitled to credit for an

automobile given to the oldest son or a television set given to the
children. Thus, if the children remain in the custody of the mother,
the father is not entitled to credit for money paid directly to the
children if such was paid without any relation to the decree.
III. Applicability of Support Pendente Lite in VAWC

cases

Support Pendente Lite

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Support Pendente Lite

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLED - ASSIGNMENT

I. Support Pendente Lite (definition, rationale and purpose)

I. Support Pendente Lite (definition, rationale and

Support Pendente Lite is one of among the provisional remedies

Art. 49. During the pendency of the action and in the

In determining what encompasses the Support, Article 49 of the

Art. 194. Support comprises everything

The education of the person entitled to be supported

schooling or training for some profession, trade or

Considering that Sec. 1 of Rule 61, Civil Procedure allows the

II. Support Pendente Lite in other jurisdictions (laws,

In the case of Gorayeb vs. Hashim, the defendant obtain a

From what has been said it follows that the

decree of divorce are not well taken; but for reasons

Furthermore, in the same case, the Court cited an excerpt in

It must be remembered that alimony is an allowance

In Bradford v. Futrell, appellant sought review of the

had clearly designated as gifts, nor was he entitled to credit for an

III. Applicability of Support Pendente Lite in VAWC

You might also like