This document outlines an assignment to analyze and discuss support pendente lite. It begins by defining support pendente lite under Philippine law as a provisional remedy that provides sustenance for a person entitled to support while a case is pending in court. It then discusses support pendente lite in other jurisdictions based on relevant laws, jurisprudence, and studies. Finally, it introduces analyzing the applicability of support pendente lite to cases involving violence against women and children. The assignment involves in-depth discussion of these topics in 4 parts.
This document outlines an assignment to analyze and discuss support pendente lite. It begins by defining support pendente lite under Philippine law as a provisional remedy that provides sustenance for a person entitled to support while a case is pending in court. It then discusses support pendente lite in other jurisdictions based on relevant laws, jurisprudence, and studies. Finally, it introduces analyzing the applicability of support pendente lite to cases involving violence against women and children. The assignment involves in-depth discussion of these topics in 4 parts.
This document outlines an assignment to analyze and discuss support pendente lite. It begins by defining support pendente lite under Philippine law as a provisional remedy that provides sustenance for a person entitled to support while a case is pending in court. It then discusses support pendente lite in other jurisdictions based on relevant laws, jurisprudence, and studies. Finally, it introduces analyzing the applicability of support pendente lite to cases involving violence against women and children. The assignment involves in-depth discussion of these topics in 4 parts.
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
Hamilton S. Davison v. Zayda Fernandez in Her Own Right and As Mother With Patria Potestas Over Her Minor Child Mary Ann Davison Fernandez, 264 F.2d 131, 1st Cir. (1959)