Case Digest Lim v. Lim 163209 30 oct 2009

Support

Case Digest Lim v. Lim 163209 30 oct 2009

Facts: Cheryl S. Lim (Cheryl) married Edward Lim (Edward), son of petitioners. Cheryl bore Edward three children,  Lester Edward, Candice Grace and Mariano III. Cheryl abandoned the Forbes Park residence, bringing the children with her (then all minors), after a violent confrontation with Edward whom she caught with the in-house midwife of Chua Giak in what the trial court described a very compromising situation.Cheryl, for herself and her children, sued petitioners, Edward, Chua Giak and Mariano  in the Regional Trial Court of Makati for support. The trial court ordered Edward to provide monthly support of P6,000 pendente lite.^[4]

The Ruling of the Trial Court:On 31 January 1996, the trial court rendered judgment ordering Edward and petitioners to jointly provide P40,000 monthly support to respondents, with Edward shouldering P6,000 and petitioners the balance of P34,000 subject to Chua Giaks subsidiary liability.^[5]

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals assailing, among others, their liability to support respondents. Petitioners argued that while Edwards income is insufficient, the law itself sanctions its effects by providing that legal support should be in keeping with the financial capacity of the family under Article 194 of the Civil Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 209 (The Family Code of the Philippines).^[7]

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision dated 28 April 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. On the issue material to this appeal, that is, whether there is basis to hold petitioners, as Edwards parents, liable with him to support respondents, the Court of Appeals held: 

In connection with this provision, Article 200 paragraph (3) of the Family Code clearly provides that should the person obliged to give support does not have sufficient means to satisfy all claims, the other persons enumerated in Article 199 in its order shall provide the necessary support. This is because the closer the relationship of the relatives, the stronger the tie that binds them. Thus, the obligation to support is imposed first upon the shoulders of the closer relatives and only in their default is the obligation moved to the next nearer relatives and so on.^[8]

The Issue

  

Whether or not petitioners are concurrently liable with Edward to provide support to respondents?

The Ruling of the Court

We rule in the affirmative. However, we modify the appealed judgment by limiting petitioners liability to the amount of monthly support needed by respondents Lester Edward, Candice Grace and Mariano III only.

Petitioners Liable to Provide Support

but only to their Grandchildren

while parental authority under Title IX (and the correlative parental rights) pertains to parents, passing to ascendants only upon its termination or suspension, the obligation to provide legal support passes on to ascendants not only upon default of the parents but also for the latters inability to provide sufficient support. As we observed in another case raising the ancillary issue of an ascendants obligation to give support in light of the fathers sufficient means:

Professor Pineda is of the view that grandchildren cannot demand support directly from their grandparents if they have parents (ascendants of nearest degree) who are capable of supporting them. This is so because we have to follow the order of support under Art. 199. We agree with this view.

Here, there is no question that Cheryl is unable to discharge her obligation to provide sufficient legal support to her children, then all school-bound. It is also undisputed that the amount of support Edward is able to give to respondents, P6,000 a month, is insufficient to meet respondents basic needs. This inability of Edward and Cheryl to sufficiently provide for their children shifts a portion of their obligation to the ascendants in the nearest degree, both in the paternal (petitioners) and maternal^[19] lines, following the ordering in Article 199. To hold otherwise, and thus subscribe to petitioners theory, is to sanction the anomalous scenario of tolerating extreme material deprivation of children because of parental inability to give adequate support even if ascendants one degree removed are more than able to fill the void.

However, petitioners partial concurrent obligation extends only to their descendants as this word is commonly understood to refer to relatives, by blood of lower degree. As petitioners grandchildren by blood, only respondents Lester Edward, Candice Grace and Mariano III belong to this category. Indeed, Cheryls right to receive support from the Lim family extends only to her husband Edward, arising from their marital bond.^[20] Unfortunately, Cheryls share from the amount of monthly support the trial court awarded cannot be determined from the records. Thus, we are constrained to remand the case to the trial court for this limited purpose.^[21]

Petitioners Precluded from Availing

of the Alternative Option Under

Article 204 of the Civil Code, as Amended

As an alternative proposition, petitioners wish to avail of the option in Article 204 of the Civil Code, as amended, and pray that they be allowed to fulfill their obligation by maintaining respondents at petitioners Makati residence. The option is unavailable to petitioners.

The application of Article 204 which provides that

The person obliged to give support shall have the option to fulfill the obligation either by paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in the family dwelling the person who has a right to receive support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of in case there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto. (Emphasis supplied)

is subject to its exception clause. Here, the persons entitled to receive support are petitioners grandchildren and daughter-in-law. Granting petitioners the option in Article 204 will secure to the grandchildren a well-provided future; however, it will also force Cheryl to return to the house which, for her, is the scene of her husbands infidelity. While not rising to the level of a legal obstacle, as indeed, Cheryls charge against Edward for concubinage did not prosper for insufficient evidence, her steadfast insistence on its occurrence amounts to a moral impediment bringing the case within the ambit of the exception clause of Article 204, precluding its application.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 28 April 2003, and its Resolution dated 12 April 2004 with the MODIFICATION that petitioners Prudencio and Filomena Lim are liable to provide support only to respondents Lester Edward, Candice Grace and Mariano III, all surnamed Lim. We REMAND the case to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 140, for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.