G.R. No. L-12271 - MAY 1949 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-12271May 31, 1949 Benigno del Rio vs. Carlo Palanca G.R. No. L-2450May 31, 1949 Veronica Ruperto vs. Ceferino Fernando, et al. G.R. No. L-2377May 31, 1949 Republic vs. Justa G. vda. de Guido, et al. G.R. No. L-2351May 31, 1949 Francisco Argos vs. Dominador Veloso, et al. G.R. No. L-2326May 31, 1949 Fernando Alejo, et al. vs. Mariano Garchitorena, et al. G.R. No. L-2283May 31, 1949 Marina Tayzon, et al. vs. Ramon Ycasiano, et al. G.R. No. L-2253May 31, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Servando Maniego, et al. G.R. No. L-2252May 31, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Bartolome Bedia G.R. No. L-2108May 31, 1949 Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. vs. Luis G. Ablaza, et al. G.R. No. L-1952May 31, 1949 Francisco R. Villaroman vs. Florentino J. Technico G.R. No. L-1927May 31, 1949 Cristobal Roño vs. Jose L. Gomez, et al. G.R. No. L-1827May 31, 1949 Alfredo Catolico vs. Ireneo Ranjo, et al. G.R. No. L-1299May 31, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Jacob J. Loewinsohn G.R. No. L-1298May 31, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Santos Balingit G.R. No. L-1281May 31, 1949 Joseph E. Icard vs. City Council of Baguio G.R. No. L-1265May 31, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Timoteo Sagario, et al. G.R. No. L-1104May 31, 1949 Eastern Theatrical Co., Inc., et al. vs. Victor Alfonso, et al. G.R. No. L-49102May 30, 1949 W.C. Ogan, et al. vs. Bibiano L. Meer G.R. No. L-2132May 30, 1949 Juana Savinada vs. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-2130May 30, 1949 Francisco Sanchez vs. Pedro Serrano, et al. G.R. No. L-2099May 30, 1949 Jose Ong vs. Bienvenido A. Tan, et al. G.R. No. L-2098May 30, 1949 Pio Marquez vs. Arsenio Prodigalidad G.R. No. L-2083May 30, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Malig G.R. No. L-2069May 30, 1949 Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. Luzon Labor Union, et al. G.R. No. L-2031May 30, 1949 Hermogenes C. Lim vs. Restituto L. Calaguas, et al. G.R. No. L-1996May 30, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Salip Julmain, et al. G.R. No. L-1978May 30, 1949 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Antonio Orcullo, et al. G.R. No. L-1723May 30, 1949 Luz Marquez de Sandoval vs. Vicente Santiago G.R. No. L-1686May 30, 1949 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Santos Toledo, et al. G.R. No. L-1609May 30, 1949 Remigio M. Peña vs. Francisco Arellano, et al. G.R. No. L-1550May 30, 1949 In re: Frederick Edward Gilbert Zuellig. Frederick Edward Gilbert Zuellig vs. Republic G.R. No. L-1511May 30, 1949 Miguel Ojo, et al. vs. Jose V. Jamito G.R. No. L-2539May 28, 1949 Jose P. Monsale vs. Paulino M. Nico G.R. No. L-2518May 28, 1949 Donata Oliveros de Tan vs. Engracio Fabre, et al. G.R. No. L-2309May 28, 1949 Lope Sarreal vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. G.R. No. L-1606May 28, 1949 In re: Yee Bo Mann. Yee Bo Mann vs. Republic G.R. No. L-2382May 27, 1949 Pablo S. Rivera vs. Francisco Arellano G.R. No. L-2300May 27, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Tumaob G.R. No. L-1869May 27, 1949 Jose Pio Barretto vs. N. Almeda Lopez, et al. G.R. No. L-1861May 27, 1949 Rizal Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Bienvenido A. Tan, et al. G.R. No. L-1394May 27, 1949 Rafael Roa Yrostorza vs. Republic G.R. No. L-1274May 27, 1949 Philippine Transit Association vs. Treasurer of the City of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-675-676May 27, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Nemesio Lastimoso, et al. G.R. No. L-2423May 26, 1949 M.A. Zarcal, et al. vs. S. Herrero, et al. G.R. No. L-2161May 26, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. James Young G.R. No. L-2022May 26, 1949 Guia S. Jose de Bayer, et al. vs. Ernesto Oppen, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-1825May 26, 1949 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Eugenio Bersida G.R. No. L-1823May 26, 1949 Geronimo de los Reyes vs. Artemio Elepaño, et al. G.R. No. L-944May 26, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Fausto Avila G.R. No. L-1980May 25, 1949 Cipriano Sevilla vs. Ceferino de los Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-2251May 24, 1949 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Elisa Tandag G.R. No. L-2004May 24, 1949 Pablo Cotaoco vs. Rafael Dinglasan, et al. G.R. No. L-1700May 24, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Mintu A.C. No. L-213May 24, 1949 Generosa A. Dia vs. Finance & Mining Investment Corporation, et al. G.R. No. L-2431May 23, 1949 Ceferino Tavora vs. Pedro Ofiana G.R. No. L-2203May 23, 1949 San Miguel Brewery vs. La Corte de Relaciones Industriales, et al. G.R. No. L-1989May 23, 1949 Jose R. Reyes vs. El Tribunal de Apelacion G.R. No. L-1795-6May 23, 1949 Jose R. Reyes vs. El Tribunal de Apelacion G.R. No. L-432May 23, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Ignacio Calinawan G.R. No. L-2831May 20, 1949 Bernardo Torres vs. Mamerto S. Ribo G.R. No. L-2245May 20, 1949 Ambrosio Carbungco vs. Rafael Amparo G.R. No. L-1917May 20, 1949 Catalino Maglasang vs. Cirilo C. Maceren, et al. G.R. No. L-1471May 20, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Julian Oraza G.R. No. L-2117May 19, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Apolonio Sombilon G.R. No. L-2484May 18, 1949 Lee Ko vs. Dionisio de Leon, et al. G.R. No. L-1918May 18, 1949 Pedro L. Flores vs. Perfecto R. Palacio, et al. G.R. No. L-1212May 18, 1949 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Celestino Basa , et al. G.R. No. L-2014May 16, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Z. Yelo G.R. No. L-1950May 16, 1949 Lao Seng Hian, et al. vs. Natividad Almeda Lopez, et al. G.R. No. L-1429May 16, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo A. Aquino G.R. No. L-792May 14, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. E.C. Cañada G.R. No. L-1833May 13, 1949 Medardo Muñoz vs. Emilio Rilloraza, et al. G.R. No. L-1769May 13, 1949 In re: Fulgencio Dairo. Purita Panaguiton vs. Florentino Patubo G.R. No. L-2064May 12, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Eligio Torres G.R. No. L-1900May 12, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Lacson G.R. No. L-1512May 12, 1949 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Federico G.R. No. L-1881May 9, 1949 Manila Terminal Company, Inc. vs. La Corte de Relaciones Industriales, et al. G.R. No. L-1765May 9, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Mario Tandug G.R. No. L-1674May 9, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Somera, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Benigno del Rio vs. Carlo Palanca Veronica Ruperto vs. Ceferino Fernando, et al. Republic vs. Justa G. vda. de Guido, et al. Francisco Argos vs. Dominador Veloso, et al. Fernando Alejo, et al. vs. Mariano Garchitorena, et al. Marina Tayzon, et al. vs. Ramon Ycasiano, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Servando Maniego, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Bartolome Bedia Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. vs. Luis G. Ablaza, et al. Francisco R. Villaroman vs. Florentino J. Technico Cristobal Roño vs. Jose L. Gomez, et al. Alfredo Catolico vs. Ireneo Ranjo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jacob J. Loewinsohn People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Santos Balingit Joseph E. Icard vs. City Council of Baguio People of the Philippines vs. Timoteo Sagario, et al. Eastern Theatrical Co., Inc., et al. vs. Victor Alfonso, et al. W.C. Ogan, et al. vs. Bibiano L. Meer Juana Savinada vs. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., et al. Francisco Sanchez vs. Pedro Serrano, et al. Jose Ong vs. Bienvenido A. Tan, et al. Pio Marquez vs. Arsenio Prodigalidad People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Malig Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. Luzon Labor Union, et al. Hermogenes C. Lim vs. Restituto L. Calaguas, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Salip Julmain, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Antonio Orcullo, et al. Luz Marquez de Sandoval vs. Vicente Santiago El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Santos Toledo, et al. Remigio M. Peña vs. Francisco Arellano, et al. In re: Frederick Edward Gilbert Zuellig. Frederick Edward Gilbert Zuellig vs. Republic Miguel Ojo, et al. vs. Jose V. Jamito Jose P. Monsale vs. Paulino M. Nico Donata Oliveros de Tan vs. Engracio Fabre, et al. Lope Sarreal vs. Sotero Rodas, et al. In re: Yee Bo Mann. Yee Bo Mann vs. Republic Pablo S. Rivera vs. Francisco Arellano People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Tumaob Jose Pio Barretto vs. N. Almeda Lopez, et al. Rizal Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Bienvenido A. Tan, et al. Rafael Roa Yrostorza vs. Republic Philippine Transit Association vs. Treasurer of the City of Manila, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Nemesio Lastimoso, et al. M.A. Zarcal, et al. vs. S. Herrero, et al. People of the Philippines vs. James Young Guia S. Jose de Bayer, et al. vs. Ernesto Oppen, Jr., et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Eugenio Bersida Geronimo de los Reyes vs. Artemio Elepaño, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Fausto Avila Cipriano Sevilla vs. Ceferino de los Santos, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Elisa Tandag Pablo Cotaoco vs. Rafael Dinglasan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Mintu Generosa A. Dia vs. Finance & Mining Investment Corporation, et al. Ceferino Tavora vs. Pedro Ofiana San Miguel Brewery vs. La Corte de Relaciones Industriales, et al. Jose R. Reyes vs. El Tribunal de Apelacion Jose R. Reyes vs. El Tribunal de Apelacion People of the Philippines vs. Ignacio Calinawan Bernardo Torres vs. Mamerto S. Ribo Ambrosio Carbungco vs. Rafael Amparo Catalino Maglasang vs. Cirilo C. Maceren, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Julian Oraza People of the Philippines vs. Apolonio Sombilon Lee Ko vs. Dionisio de Leon, et al. Pedro L. Flores vs. Perfecto R. Palacio, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Celestino Basa , et al. People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Z. Yelo Lao Seng Hian, et al. vs. Natividad Almeda Lopez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo A. Aquino People of the Philippines vs. E.C. Cañada Medardo Muñoz vs. Emilio Rilloraza, et al. In re: Fulgencio Dairo. Purita Panaguiton vs. Florentino Patubo People of the Philippines vs. Eligio Torres People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Lacson El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Federico Manila Terminal Company, Inc. vs. La Corte de Relaciones Industriales, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mario Tandug People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Somera, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-12271 May 31, 1949
BENIGNO DEL RIO,plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
CARLO PALANCA TANGUINLAY,defendant-appellee.
Sotto & Sotto for appellant.
Ramon Diokno for appelle.
TUASON,J.:
This suit was brought to recover money which plaintiff alleges to have furnished from December, 1942 to February, 1945 for the support and subsistence of defendant's five minor natural children. The amount is itemized in plaintiff's Exhibit A, a statement signed by the minor's mother and which reads as follows:
Por la presente certifico que en el periodo que cubre del 1 de noviembre de 1942 hastaaa el 31 de enero de 11945 he recibido en calidad de prestamo y coninteres del 6% anuaal de Don Benigno del Rio las cantidades que mas abajo se detallan en sus correspondientes recibos:
Recibo primero, 31-Dic-19443 ...................................... | P7,200.00 |
Recibo segundo, 1-Sept-1944 ...................................... | 18,668.00 |
Recibo tercero, 31-Dic-11945 ....................................... | 81,400.00 |
Recibo carto, 21-Ene-1945 ........................................... | 54,000.00 |
Total .................................................................................. | P161,2268.00 |
Son:
Ciento Sesentaa y un Mil Doscientoss sesentta y ocho pesos.
S. E. u O
Manila, 1 de Marzo de1945 (Fda.)
Maria Cuartero Gomez
Tutora de los Menores Palanca Cuatero
Nota: — Aqui no estaa incluido un prestamo hecho a Don Vicente Singson Encarnacion el 19 de Septt. de 1944 del que es sollidariaaa y mancomunadamente fiador Don Benigno del Rio, prestamo que tiene que reconocer Don Carlos Palanca.
The action is based on article 1894 of the Civil Code which reads:
Cuando, sin conocimiento del obligado a prestar alimentos, los diese un extraño, este tendra derecho a reclamarlos de aacquel, a no constar que los dio por officio de piedad y sin aammino de reclamarlos.
Analyzing the foregoing provision, this Court observed in Ramirez vs. Redfern, 49 Phil., 849, that "For one to ecover under the provisions of article 1894 of the Civil Code, it must be alleged and proved, first, that support has been furnished a dependent of one bound to give support but who fails to do so; second, that the support was supplied by a tranger;and third, that the support was given without the knowledge of the person charged with the duty."
With reference to the first requisite, the record reveals that in acase for support instituted by Maria Dolores Cuartero inn behalf of her children against the defendant, the Curt of First Instance of Manila handed down a decision on September 22, 1943, approvinng an agreement by the parties wherebythe defendant promised to paay the mother of the mmminors P1,500 a month for their maintenance. It is also appearss that before that date — on May 9, 1942 — the parties had signed acarta-conveniofor the same purpose but for a lower rate of allowance per month. It is not denied that the defendant more than complied with the terms of the above decision. Besides P1,500 a month, he sent the children extra cash and foodstuffs, shoes and clothings.
And the plaintiff admittedly was aware of the foregoing arrangement. What he say is that P1,500 a month was utterly insufficient. The remedy in that case was to ask the court to increase the allowance. It may be said in this connection that if the value of the preavaling Japanese currency had deteriorate, the court, in our opinion, retained the jurisdication to increase or diminish the allowance as the circumstances might justify. However, as matter of fact, P1,500 a month was deemed by the court as late as August 8, 1944, to be adequate. In denying a motion of the children mother to raise the allowance, the court stated that P1,500 was sufficient to pullthe children through those critical days in comparative comport.
The third requirement of the law is also lacking. The plaintiff made the alleged advances not only with the knowledge but apparently against the wishes of the defendant. In Exhibit F, a memorandum dated January 1, 1943, and sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, Del Rio informed Palanca that up to December 31, 1942, he had bande Maria Dolores Cuartero P750 as a loan for the support and education of the defendant's children and requested that that amount be paid. It will be noted that in the same Exhibit, the plaintiff complained that the defendant had not answered his previous letters, "recordandole los prestamos que yo le hago a Doña Maria y Vd. se hace sorio."
In the face of this attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff was not justified in continuing supplying money to the mother of the children, unless he wanted to give it out of charity or without the expectation of recovering it from the defendant. His remedy is against Maria Dolores Cuartero.
This conclusion makes unnecessary a discussion of the second requirement. It suffices to estate that the plaintiff and one of the children were engaged and were married afterward.
Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ.,concur.