G.R. No. L-2057




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-2057 October 29, 1949 ESPERANZA F. DE GONZALEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO GONZALEZ, defendant-appellant. Antonio Gonzalez for appellant. Tañada, Pelaez and Teehankee for appellee. TORRES, J.: This case is before this Court upon certification by the Court of Appeals which in its resolution of February 17, 1948 said that it lacks jurisdiction to pass upon the question raised by appellant herein. It appears that on January 2, 1946, in civil case No. 70660 between the above-named parties, the Court of First Instance of Manila pendente lite issued an order commanding the defendant to pay the plaintiff a monthly pension of P500 for her support and that of her eight children beginning from July 1, 1945 less the amounts already delivered by him to plaintiff from her support. The case was appealed, and on April 29, 1947, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision the dispositive part of which says: "In view of the foregoing considerations, that judgment of the trial court is modified, reducing the amount of support to P350 monthly, with costs." On June 18, 1947, and in connection with the above-quoted dispositive part of the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Honorable Felipe Natividad of the Court of First Instance of Manila, issued an order the dispositive part of which reads: Wherefore, the order of this Court of February 10, 1947, is hereby amended so as to read as follows: Wherefore, the defendant, Ernesto Gonzalez, is hereby ordered to pay to the plaintiff, Esperanza F. de Gonzalez, the amount of P2,845 as pension living with her for the period from July 1, 1945, to May 31, 1947, within fifteen days counted from that on which notice of this order is served on him, plus the sum of P350 monthly beginning June 1, 1947, for the same concept, until further orders from this Court. This case was brought once more to the Court of Appeals, appellant Ernesto Gonzalez alleging that the lower court erred in making the decision of the Court of Appeals effective only from June 1, 1947, and not from July 1, 1945, and that therefore it also erred in ordering the defendant-appellant to pay the plaintiff-appellee the sum of P2,845 as pension in arrears. The above-quoted dispositive part of the decision of the Court of Appeals, is silent as to the date when the payment of the reduced monthly support of P350 to appellee has become effective. Appellant claims that the monthly payment of the sum of P350 should be made effective as of July 1, 1945. On the other hand, the appellee contends that a monthly pension of P500 should be paid to her during the period from July, 1945 to May 31, 1947, and thereafter said pension should be at the rate of P350 monthly. Thus while the appellant contends that the lower court arbitrarily interpreted the decision of the Court of Appeals, the appellee holds the contrary view. Therefore, the Court of Appeals in its said resolution of February 17, 1948, held that, there being no question of fact raised, the issue involved herein is clearly one of law.lawphi1.nêt From the clear wording of the dispositive part for the decision of April 29, 1947, it cannot be denied that when the Court of Appeals said that "the judgment of the trial court is modified, reducing the amount of support to P350 monthly," it mean that the reduction of the amount of the monthly pension from P500 to P350 is applicable to the whole period covered by this litigation, and, therefore, it became effective from July 1, 1945. In the absence of any word or expression which might suggest a contrary intention on the part of the Court of Appeals, the above is the most correct and sound interpretation of the wording of the dispositive part of said decision of the Court of Appeals, particularly in view of the lower court of January 2, 1946, on the question of the amount which he should pay the plaintiff for her support and that of his eight children, which was decide by the Court of Appeals by reducing it from P500 to P350. We, therefore, reverse the order of the lower court of June 18, 1947, in so far it is not in accord with the terms of this decision; otherwise, it is affirmed. The Court of First Instance shall make the necessary and proper readjustment of the amount, if any, that is still due the plaintiff. Without costs. So ordered. Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation