Reyes vs. Ines-Luciano

A wife’s alleged adultery, if not proved by competent evidence, does not bar her from receiving support pendente lite in an action for legal separation; the court may fix the amount of provisional support based on affidavits and documentary evidence without a full trial on the merits.

Celia Ilustre-Reyes and Manuel J. C. Reyes were married on January 18, 1958, and had three children. During the marriage, the husband controlled several corporations with substantial assets and retained earnings, serving as president, manager, and treasurer, and holding 99% of the shares in at least two of them. By 1976, the spouses had separated. The wife, unemployed and without funds, resided with her father. She claimed that on 10 March 1976 and 26 May 1976, the husband physically attacked her with intent to kill—pummeling her with fist blows, bumping her head against a cement floor, pushing her down a flight of stairs, and kicking her.

• The Complaint: On 3 June 1976, Celia Ilustre-Reyes filed a complaint for legal separation in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City, alleging that her husband, Manuel J. C. Reyes, attempted to kill her on 10 March 1976 by pummeling her, bumping her head against the cement floor, and pushing her down a flight of stairs, and again on 26 May 1976 by dousing her with grape juice, kicking her on the back and nape, and threatening to hit her with a steel tray. She prayed for support pendente lite for herself and their three children.

• Opposition to Support: The husband opposed the application for support pendente lite, asserting that the wife had committed adultery with her physician and was therefore not entitled to support. No testimonial or other competent evidence of the alleged adultery was presented at the hearing. The matter was submitted for resolution on the basis of the pleadings and the attached documents.

• The Trial Court’s Orders: Respondent Judge granted support pendente lite of P5,000.00 a month effective June 1976 in an order dated 15 March 1977, citing the wife’s unemployment, lack of funds, and the husband’s maltreatment, as well as documentary evidence of the husband’s control over three corporations with significant paid-in capital, assets, retained earnings, and his 99% stock ownership in two of them. On reconsideration, the judge reduced the amount to P4,000.00 a month in an order dated 17 June 1977, noting that the children were in the husband’s custody and being supported by him.

• Evidence of Means: The record contained documents showing that the corporations controlled by the husband—Standard Mineral Products, Development and Technology Consultant Inc., and The Contra-Prop Marine Philippines, Inc.—had aggregate assets and liabilities in the hundreds of thousands of pesos, retained earnings, and multi-million-peso contracts with the Ministry of Public Highways.

• Adultery as an Absolute Bar: Petitioner argued that the wife’s adultery disqualified her from receiving any support pendente lite, invoking the principle that adultery is a complete defense in an action for support.

• Excessiveness and Evidentiary Deficiency: Petitioner maintained that even if support were proper, the amount of P4,000.00 a month was excessive and unsupported by competent evidence. He contended that the trial court could not fix support based solely on affidavits and documentary evidence, and that a full evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine the proper amount.

• Unproven Adultery: Private respondent countered that the adultery charge had not been proved by any competent evidence and that she was seeking support from conjugal property rather than the husband’s personal funds, rendering the adultery issue immaterial at the provisional stage.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Reasonableness of Amount: Respondent argued that the trial judge properly relied on the documentary evidence of the husband’s extensive corporate holdings and income, and that the P4,000.00 monthly support was commensurate with the parties’ station in life and the high cost of living.

• Effect of Unproved Adultery on Support Pendente Lite: Whether an allegation of adultery that has not been proved by competent evidence bars the wife from receiving support pendente lite in a legal separation proceeding.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Fixing the Amount: Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion by awarding P4,000.00 monthly support pendente lite on the basis of affidavits and documentary evidence, without conducting a full trial on the merits.

• Effect of Unproved Adultery on Support Pendente Lite: The wife’s alleged adultery, having been neither proved by competent evidence nor sustained at the hearing on the application for provisional support, did not bar her from receiving support pendente lite. While adultery, if properly proved, is a valid defense that will defeat an action for support, a mere allegation is insufficient. Petitioner retained the opportunity to present evidence of adultery during the trial on the merits of the legal separation case. Additionally, because the wife sought support from conjugal property and not from the husband’s personal funds, it was doubtful whether proof of adultery could affect her right to alimony pendente lite at all.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Fixing the Amount: The award of P4,000.00 monthly support was not capricious or whimsical. The trial judge considered the wife’s detailed allegations of life-threatening physical violence, her unemployment and lack of funds, and the husband’s demonstrated financial capacity as shown by corporate records and multi-million-peso government contracts. Consistent with Sanchez v. Zulueta and Salazar v. Salazar, the resolution of an application for support pendente lite does not require a full trial on the merits; it is sufficient that the court examine affidavits and documentary evidence appearing in the record to justly resolve the provisional matter. In light of prevailing economic conditions and the husband’s substantial means, the amount fixed was not excessive.

• Provisional Determination of Support Pendente Lite — In resolving an application for alimony pendente lite, the court need not conduct a full trial on the merits. Given the merely provisional character of the order, it is enough that the court ascertains the kind and amount of evidence it deems sufficient to justly resolve the application; affidavits and documentary evidence in the record may suffice. (See Sanchez v. Zulueta, 68 Phil. 110; Salazar v. Salazar, 82 Phil. 1084.)

• Adultery as an Affirmative Defense Requiring Proof — Adultery is a valid defense to a claim for support, but it must be established by competent evidence. An unsubstantiated allegation of adultery will not bar the wife’s right to support pendente lite. The defense may be fully litigated during the trial on the merits.

• “It is true that the adultery of the wife is a defense in an action for support however, the alleged adultery of wife must be established by competent evidence. The allegation that the wife has committed adultery will not bar her from the right receive support pendente lite. Adultery is a good defense and if properly proved and sustained will defeat the action.” — This passage unequivocally states the burden of proof on the spouse asserting adultery as a bar to support.

• “In determining the amount to be awarded as support pendente lite it is not necessary to go fully into the merits of the case, it being sufficient that the court ascertain the kind and amount of evidence which it may deem sufficient to enable it to justly resolve the application, one way or the other, in view of the merely provisional character of the resolution to be entered. Mere affidavits may satisfy the court to pass upon the application for support pendente lite.” — This articulates the controlling standard for the provisional remedy of support pendente lite.

• Quintana v. Lerma, 24 Phil. 285 — Followed for the rule that adultery, if properly proved and sustained, will defeat an action for support, but the mere allegation is insufficient to bar support pendente lite.

• Sanchez v. Zulueta, et al., 68 Phil. 110 — Applied as authority that a court may resolve an application for support pendente lite on the basis of affidavits and documentary evidence without fully trying the merits.

• Salazar v. Salazar, G.R. No. L-5823, April 29, 1953, 82 Phil. 1084 — Applied to confirm that facts for purposes of support pendente lite may be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence appearing in the record.

N/A (The decision does not cite specific articles of the Civil Code or other statutes.)

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concurred.