Gabor Civpro Digests

of 3
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  Gabor, Rex Bernard D. Civil Procedure Law 2B [G.R. No. L-25029. August 28, 1968.] PROCESO VINLUAN, Petitioner  , v. THE HON. JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS —  EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ANTONIO CAÑIZARES and HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR. and JOSEFINA RAMOS, Respondents . Facts: In a prior case, Josefina Ramos filed against her husband, Proceso Vinluan a case for legal separation and separation of property. Pending final determination of that case, Ramos filed a petition for alimony pendente lite alleging that they were separated since 1960 and that their children needed money for support. This was denied by the court presided by Judge Bello on October 3, 1964 on the ground that it was premature to order the payment of alimony pendente lite. This denial was questioned by the wife before the Court of appeals in an srcinal action for certiorari against the husband and Judge Bello to annul the Judge’s order and secure a decree of alimony pendente lite. The CA granted the writ prayed for and required the husband to provide monthly alimony. Hence, the petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. Issue: WON Certiorari (before the Court of Appeals) was the proper action to question denial of petition for alimony pendente lite (as the plaintiff allegedly had another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, which is review by appeal). Ruling: Yes. It is true that plaintiff could have sought a review by appeal of Judge Bello’s order of October 3, 1964, but since the same is interlocutory, plaintiff would have had to wait, for its review by appeal, until the rendition of judgment on the merits, which may not be forthcoming until months or years later. Meanwhile, plaintiff and her children needed alimony, to live somehow. Hence, an appeal would not have been a speedy and adequate remedy.  Gabor, Rex Bernard D. Civil Procedure Law 2B [G.R. No. L-46763. February 28, 1978.] ANTONIO VASCO, Petitioner  , v. COURT OF APPEALS, LEONOR INES LUCIANO, as Presiding Judge of the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, Quezon City; NICANOR SALAYSAY, as Sheriff for the Province of Rizal, and ANGELINA REYES Y BAJACAN, REYNALDO VASCO and LOLITA VASCO, Respondents . Facts: This case is about the trial court’s jurisdiction to execute a judgment for support pending appeal. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon in a decision found that Reynaldo and Lolita Vasco are illegitimate children of Antonio Vasco and Angelina Reyes. The Court ordered Antonio to pay the children the sum of P200 as monthly allowance for sup port (plus attorney’ s fees). Antonio Vasco appealed to the CA from that decision. Two months after the approval of the record on appeal, the children filed a motion for the execution of the said judgment pending appeal. The lower court granted the motion. Antonio Vasco assailed such order of execution in his petition for certiorari in the CA. The CA upheld the order of execution pending appeal in the “interest of substantial  justice”.  Thus, Antonio Vasco filed before the SC the instant petition for certiorari. Issue: WON the trial court has jurisdiction to issue an order of execution pending appeal. Ruling:  No. The general rule is that an appeal stays the execution of judgment. After the perfection of the appeal, the trial court loses its jurisdiction over the case, except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal xxx (Sec. 9, Rule 11, Rules of Court). An order for execution pending appeal does not fall within the said exception because it is a proceeding involving the very matter litigated by the appeal. However, before the rendition of judgment, the plaintiffs could have availed themselves in the lower court of the provisional remedy of support pendente lite.  Gabor, Rex Bernard D. Civil Procedure Law 2B [G.R. No. L-59906. October 23, 1982.] BUENAVENTURA SAN JUAN, Petitioner  , v. HON. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal and DOROTEA MEJIA, Respondents . Facts: The marriage between San Juan and Mejia was declared null and void by the CFI of Rizal on the ground of a prior and subsisting marriage of San Juan. Mejia instituted an action seeking support for herself and her two minor children. Judge Valenzuela granted the support pendente lite fixed at P2,500 a month. A motion for reconsideration was denied; thus, San Juan brought this petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order of Judge Valenzuela. During the pendency of said petition, San Juan filed with the trial court a manifestation proposing a scheme of payment for the amount of support which had accrued, and seeking to reduce the amount of support pendente lite to P1,000 on the ground that the sum previously fixed by respondent judge is now beyond his means to pay. The payment scheme was approved but the reduction of the monthly support was denied because the judge left for abroad. Issue: 1)   WON San Juan’s petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order of Judge Valenzuela is rendered moot and academic by pet itioner’s proposal and willingness to pay the same. 2) WON the order fixing the amount of support pendente lite is final in character. Ruling: 1) Yes. T he petitioner’s willingness to pay the amount of support pendente lite in the manner indicated in his manifestation in the lower court, and the approval thereof by the respondent judge renders the certiorari   petition to annul Judge Valenzuela’s order moot and academic. 2) No. The order fixing the amount of support pendente lite is not final in character but subject to modification depending on obligor’s ability to pay the amount fixed for support.


Apr 16, 2018
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks