DOLORES MONTEFALCON & LAURENCE MONTEFALCON

vs.
RONNIE S. VASQUEZ
G.R. No. 165016 June 17, 2008

FACTS:
In 1999, petitioner Dolores P. Montefalcon filed a Complaint for acknowledgment and support against
respondent Ronnie S. Vasquez before the RTC of Naga City. Alleging that her son Laurence (co-petitioner) is the
illegitimate child of Vasquez, she prayed that Vasquez be obliged to give support to their son, whose certificate of live
birth he signed as father. According to petitioners, Vasquez only gave a total of P19,000 as support for Laurence
since Laurence was born in 1993, and allegedly refused to give him regular school allowance despite repeated
demands. Petitioner Dolores added that she and Vasquez are not legally married, and that Vasquez has his own
family.
A sheriff tried to serve the summons and complaint on Vasquez in Aro-aldao, Nabua, Camarines Sur.
Vasquez's grandfather received them as Vasquez was in Manila. Vasquez's mother returned the documents to the
clerk of court, who informed the court of the non-service of summons. Petitioners then filed a motion to declare
Vasquez in default. The court denied it for lack of proper service of summons.
On petitioners motion, the trial court declared Vasquez in default for failure to file an answer despite the
substituted service of summons. Vasquez was furnished with court orders and notices of the proceedings at his last
known address. Noting that Vasquez is a seafarer and left the country on January 24, 2000 and came back
on October 12, 2000
Vasquez filed a petition on appeal contending that the court never acquired jurisdiction over his person and
the awarding of support as excessive. CA granted his appeal ruling on the service of summons was defective as
there was no proof of impossibility in personal service and an attempt to effect such.
Vasquez countered that because he was abroad; service of summons should have been personal or by
publication as substituted service is proper only if a defendant is in the country. Vasquez also added that the sheriffs
return did not state that he exerted efforts to personally serve the summons.
In their reply, petitioners insisted that a substituted service is the normal method if one is temporarily away
from the country as personal service abroad or by publication are not ordinary means of service.

ISSUES:
1) Whether there is a valid substituted service of summons on Vasquez to clothe the trial court with jurisdiction
over his person.
2) Whether he is obliged to give support to co-petitioner Laurence.
RULING:
1) Yes. To acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant, service of summons must be personal, or
if this is not feasible within a reasonable time, then by substituted service. It is of judicial notice that
overseas Filipino seafarers are contractual employees. They go back to the country once their contracts
expire, and wait for the signing of another contract with the same or new manning agency and principal if
they wish. In this case, respondent Vasquez hails from Camarines Sur but he has lived in Taguig City when
the complaint was filed. Notice may then be taken that he has established a residence in either
place. Residence is a place where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service
was made, even though he was temporarily abroad at the time. As an overseas seafarer, Vasquez was a
Filipino resident temporarily out of the country. Section 16 of Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure is not mandatory
in nature, hence, personal service out of the country was impracticable. The substituted service of summons
was correctly diligently done by the sheriff when he ascertained first the whereabouts of Vasquez. Adding
also that, the person who received the alias summons was of suitable age and discretion, then residing at
Vasquezs dwelling. However, concluding that Vasquez had sufficient time to argue and to file a motion for
reconsideration, he was silent.
2) Yes. Laurence Montefalcon is entitled for support as provided in Article 175 of the Civil Code, provided
further in Article 172 of the same code. Laurences record of birth is an authentic, relevant and admissible
piece of evidence to prove paternity and filiation. Vasquez did not deny that Laurence is his child with
Dolores. He signed as father in Laurences certificate of live birth, a public document. He supplied the data
entered in it. Thus, it is a competent evidence of filiation as he had a hand in its preparation. In fact, if the child
had been recognized by any of the modes in the first paragraph of Article 172, there is no further need to file
any action for acknowledgment because any of said modes is by itself a consummated act. In addition, Under
Article 195 (4) of the Family Code, a parent is obliged to support his illegitimate child and the amount is variable
depending on the needs of the child.
 SY VS COURT OF APPEALS

G.R No. 124518, December 27, 2007

FACTS:

On 19 January 1994, Mercedes Tan Uy-Sy filed a petition for habeas corpus against Wilson Sy before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 48, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 94-69002. Mercedes prayed that said
writ be issued ordering Wilson to produce their minor children Vanessa and Jeremiah before the court and that after
hearing, their care and custody be awarded to her as their mother.

In his answer, Wilson prayed that the custody of the minors be awarded to him instead. Petitioner maintained
that Mercedes was unfit to take custody of the minors. He adduced the following reasons: firstly, respondent
abandoned her family in 1992; secondly, she is mentally unstable; and thirdly, she cannot provide proper care to the
children.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the custody of the minor children be given to the mother.
2. Whether or not the father is obligated to provide financial support to the minor children not in his
custody.

RULING:
1. Yes. Section 213 of the Family Code states that:
In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the
Court. The Court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over seven
years of age, unless the parent is unfit.
No child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling
reasons to order otherwise.
In all controversies regarding the custody of minors, the sole and foremost consideration is the physical,
educational, social and moral welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the respective resources and social
and moral situations of the contending parents.
However, the law favors the mother if she is a fit and proper person to have custody of her children so that
they may not only receive her attention, care, supervision but also have the advantage and benefit of a mothers love
and devotion for which there is no substitute. Generally, the love, solicitude and devotion of a mother cannot be
replaced by another and are worth more to a child of tender years than all other things combined.

2. Yes.
Article 203 of the Family Code states that the obligation to give support is demandable from the time the
person who has a right to receive the same needs it for maintenance, but it shall not be paid except from the date of
judicial or extrajudicial demand.
The Court likewise affirms the award of P50,000.00 as support for the minor children. As found by both
courts, petitioners representations regarding his familys wealth and his capability to provide for his family more than
provided a fair indication of his financial standing even though he proved to be less than forthright on the matter. In
any event, this award of support is merely provisional as the amount may be modified or altered in accordance with
the increased or decreased needs of the needy party and with the means of the giver.
 MANGONON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 125041 June 30, 2006

FACTS
On 17 March 1994, petitioner Ma. Belen B. Mangonon filed, in behalf of her then minor children Rica and
Rina, a Petition for Declaration of Legitimacy and Support, with application for support pendente lite with the RTC
Makati. In said petition, it was alleged that on 16 February 1975, petitioner and respondent Federico Delgado were
civilly married by then City Court Judge Eleuterio Agudo in Legaspi City, Albay. At that time, petitioner was only 21
years old while respondent Federico was only 19 years old. As the marriage was solemnized without the required
consent per Article 85 of the New Civil Code, it was annulled on 11 August 1975 by the Quezon City Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court.

On 25 March 1976, or within seven months after the annulment of their marriage, petitioner gave birth to
twins Rica and Rina. According to petitioner, she, with the assistance of her second husband Danny Mangonon,
raised her twin daughters as private respondents had totally abandoned them. At the time of the institution of the
petition, Rica and Rina were about to enter college in the United States of America (USA) where petitioner, together
with her daughters and second husband, had moved to and finally settled in. Rica was admitted to the University of
Massachusetts (Amherst) while Rina was accepted by the Long Island University and Western New England College.
Despite their admissions to said universities, Rica and Rina were, however, financially incapable of pursuing
collegiate education because of the following:
i) The average annual cost for college education in the US is about US$22,000/year, broken down as
follows:
Tuition Fees US$13,000.00
Room & Board 5,000.00
Books 1,000.00
Yearly Transportation &
Meal Allowance 3,000.00
Total US$ 22,000.00
Or a total of US$44,000.00, more or less, for both Rica and Rina

ISSUE
Whether or not Federico is obliged to provide support

Ruling:
In this case, this Court believes that respondent Francisco could not avail himself of the second option.
From the records, we gleaned that prior to the commencement of this action, the relationship between respondent
Francisco, on one hand, and petitioner and her twin daughters, on the other, was indeed quite pleasant. The
correspondences exchanged among them expressed profound feelings of thoughtfulness and concern for one
anothers well-being. The photographs presented by petitioner as part of her exhibits presented a seemingly typical
family celebrating kinship. All of these, however, are now things of the past. With the filing of this case, and the
allegations hurled at one another by the parties, the relationships among the parties had certainly been affected.
Particularly difficult for Rica and Rina must be the fact that those who they had considered and claimed as family
denied having any familial relationship with them. Given all these, we could not see Rica and Rina moving back here
in the Philippines in the company of those who have disowned them.
 Finally, as to the amount of support pendente lite, we take our bearings from the provision of the law
mandating the amount of support to be proportionate to the resources or means of the giver and to the necessities of
the recipient. Guided by this principle, we hold respondent Francisco liable for half of the amount of school expenses
incurred by Rica and Rina as support pendente lite. As established by petitioner, respondent Francisco has the
financial resources to pay this amount given his various business endeavors.
 GAN VS REYES
GR no. 145527
May 28, 2002

FACTS

Bernadette S. Pondevida cannot afford to send her 3-year old daughter to school so she wrote to the petitioner
Augustus R. Gan a demand to give support for their love child. However, Gan denied paternity of the child which
resulted to Pondevida filing a complaint against Gan. Gan moved to dismiss the case invoking that there is no cause
of action because the birth certificate of the child indicated that the father is unknown but it was denied. Despite
denial of his motion, petitioner failed to file his answer within the reglementary period. Thus, on January 19, 2000
private respondent moved that petitioner be declared in default, which motion was granted.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, the court received the evidence of private
respondent ex parte. The court ruled in favor of Pondevida and ordered Gan for support for his illegitimate child
immediately.

Petitioner in his appeal argued that he shouldnt immediately provide for the child because
a. under the rules a judgment for support which is subject of an appeal cannot be executed absent any good
reason for its immediate execution
b. the writ is invalid because it was issued in violation of his right to notice and hearing
c. he should be allowed to prove his defense in adultery so that the claim for support would be denied
d. in an action by a child against his putative father, adultery of the child's mother would be a valid defense to
show that the child is a fruit of adulterous relations for, in such case, it would not be the child of the defendant
and therefore not entitled to support
e. DNA testing should be allowed to prove paternity

ISSUE

Whether or not, the court needs to wait for the result of the DNA test before giving the final decision regarding child
support.

HELD

Petition is denied.

Court applied the legal maxim of Absoluta Sententia Expositore Non Indiget Augustus and reminded the petitioner
that the plain words of the statute does not need further explanation. The court cannot wait for the result of the
paternity in all cases involving a child, his interest and welfare are always the paramount concerns because if it had
to wait the final judgment, the children may in the meantime have suffered because of lack of food or have missed
and lost years in school because of lack of funds.