Anda di halaman 1dari 4

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUES DEFENSE OF RESPONDENT SC RULINGS Violations of RA 9262

STEVEN R. PAVLOW VS.


CHERRY L MENDENILLA, G.R
NO. 181489, APRIL 19, 2017

NORMA A DEL SOCORRO VS. Norma A. Del Socorro and Whether or not Wilsem, a Divorce Covenant presented Yes. The deprivation or denial Violation of Sec 5, Parag e (2)
ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN Ernst Van Wilsem contracted foreign citizen may be held by respondent does not or denial of financial support
VAN WILSEM, G.R NO marriage in Holland. They liable for violation of RA 9262 completely show that he is to the child is considered an
193707, DECEMBER 10, 2014 were blessed with a son not liable to give support to act of violence against
named Roderigo Norjo Van his son after the divorce women and children.
Wilsem. Unfortunately, their decree was issued. It cannot be gainsaid,
marriage bond ended by therefore, that the
virtue of a Divorce Decree respondent is not obliged to
issued by the appropriate support petitioner's son as a
Court of Holland. Thereafter, consequence of the Divorce
Norma and her son came Covenant obtained.
home to the Philippines.
According to Norma, Ernst
made a promise to provide
monthly support to their son.
However, since the arrival of
petitioner and her son in the
Philippines, Ernst never gave
support to Roderigo.
Respondent remarried again
a Filipina and resides again
the Philippines particularly in
Cebu where the petitioner
also resides. Norma filed a
complaint against Ernst for
violation of R.A. No. 9262 for
the latter’s unjust refusal to
support his minor child with
petitioner.
MA. BELEN B. MANGONON Ma. Belen B. Mangonon filed, Whether Francisco is obliged The latter’s contention to RTC ruled in favor of Belen
VS CA, G.R NO. 125041, in behalf of her then minor to support Rica and Rina. avail of the option under FC, and directed Federico and
JUNE 30, 2006 children Rica and Rina, a Article 204 anent his Francisco to provide a
Petition for Declaration of obligation. monthly support (pendente
Legitimacy and Support, with lite) for the education of the
application for support twins. CA affirmed the RTC
pendente lite with the RTC. decision. Unsatisfied with the
Petitioner and respondent decision, Belen brought this
Federico Delgado were civilly instant petition. Here,
married by then City Court Federico argues that
Judge. At that time, assuming he is indeed the
petitioner was only 21 years father of the twin sisters, he
old while respondent has the option under the law
Federico was only 19 years as to how he would provide
old. As the marriage was support. Francisco, on the
solemnized without the other hand, posits that
required consent per Article because Belen and her twins
85 of the New Civil Code, it are now US citizens, they
was annulled. Within seven cannot invoke the Family
months after the annulment Code provisions on support
of their marriage, petitioner as “laws relating to family
gave birth to twins Rica and rights and duties, or to the
Rina. According to petitioner, status, condition and legal
she, with the assistance of capacity of persons are
her second husband Danny binding upon citizens of the
Mangonon, raised her twin Philippines, even though
daughters as private living abroad.
respondents had totally
abandoned them. At the time Guided by this principle, SC
of the institution of the hold respondent Francisco
petition, Rica and Rina were liable for half of the amount
about to enter college in the of school expenses incurred
United States of America by Rica and Rina as support
(USA) where petitioner, pendente lite. The court
together with her daughters deems it proper to award
and second husband, had support pendente lite in
moved to and finally settled arrears to be computed from
in. Both Rica and Rina Rica the time they entered college
was admitted to the until they had finished their
University College. Despite respective studies. And order
their admissions to said the return of the amounts
universities, Rica and Rina already paid with legal
were, however, financially interest from the dates of
incapable of pursuing actual payment.
collegiate education.
CHARLES GOTARDO VS. SUMMARY: Whether or not the CA Petitioner argues that the SC denied the petition and
DIVINA BULIG, G.R NO. Single mother seeking child committed a reversible error evidence on record is AFFIRMED the CA ruling
165166, AUGUST 15, 2012 support through establishing when it set aside the RTCs insufficient to prove sustaining the award of
filiation with ex-fiancee. findings and ordered the paternity. monthly child support, not
petitioner to recognize and finding any reversible error in
Respondent Divina Bulig filed provide legal support to his CA’s ruling. In this case, the
a complaint with RTC for minor son. respondent established a
compulsory recognition and prima facie case that the
support pendent lite, petitioner is the putative
claiming that the petitioner is father through testimony
the father of her child. Later, that she had been sexually
the respondent gave birth involved only with one man,
and petitioner did not show the petitioner, at the time of
up and failed to provide her conception. His
support for their child. allegations, therefore, cannot
However, petitioner denied be given credence for lack of
the imputed paternity. evidentiary support. The
During the pendency of the petitioner’s denial cannot
case, the RTC, on the overcome the respondent’s
respondents’ motion granted clear and categorical
monthly child support. The assertions. Since filiation is
CA consequently set asde the beyond question, support
RTC decision and ordered the follows as a matter of
petitioner to recognize his obligation; a parent is obliged
minor son. It also reinstated to support his child; whether
the RTC order for monthly legitimate or illegitimate.
child support. The petitioner Support consists of
argues that the CA everything indispensable for
committed a reversible error sustenance, dwelling,
in rejecting the RTCs ruling, clothing, medical attendance,
and the evidence on record is education and
insufficient to prove transportation, in keeping
paternity. with financial incapacity of
the family.