Lim Lua v. Lua (G.R. No. 175279-80, Jun. 5, 2013) Facts: Petitioner Susan Lim-Lua filed an action for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with respondent Danilo Y. Lua, and for support pendent lite amounting to P500,000.

Respondent on the other hand, refused and manifested that he is only willing to give as much as 75,000 as support. RTC ruled that the amount of 250,000 support per month is sufficient, notwithstanding the separate medical support for susan when the need arises. However this amount was eventually reduced by the CA, citing the fact that there was no evidence adduced to show the alleged millions of income of respondent, and that based on the evidence presented the proper amount to paid should be 115,000. This was not assailed by any party does it became final and executory. Issues once again arised, when respondent in complying with its obligation paid only the amount of P162,651.90 to petitioner. Respondent explained that, as decreed in the CA decision, he deducted from the amount of support in arrears (September 3, 2003 to March 2005) ordered by the CA -- P2,185,000.00 -- plus P460,000.00 (April, May, June and July 2005), totalingP2,645,000.00, the advances given by him to his children and petitioner in the sum of P2,482,348.16 (with attached photocopies of receipts/billings). On the other hand petitioner contends that respondent shouldnt be allowed the deductions he made arguing that under Article 194, support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family, that in this case the cars and credit card charges are not part of support. Once again RTC, ruled in favor of petitioner granting a writ of execution, however upon appeal such was decision was reversed and the CA allowed the deductions made by respondent. Hence the case at bar.

Issue: WON the deductions made by respondent including the two automobile and credit card charges are valid deductions and considered as advances. Held: The Supreme Court reversed the CA, and stated that CA should not have allowed all the expenses incurred by respondent to be credited against the accrued support pendente lite. The amount of support which those related by marriage and family relationship is generally obliged to give each other shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to the needs of the recipient. Such support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. Here, the monthly support pendente lite granted by the trial court was intended primarily for food, household expenses such as salaries of drivers and house helpers, and also petitioners scoliosis therapy sessions. Hence, the value of two expensive cars bought by respondent for his children plus their maintenance cost, travel expenses of petitioner and Angelli, purchases through credit card of items other than groceries and dry goods (clothing) should have been disallowed, as these bear no relation to the judgment awarding support pendente lite. Any amount respondent seeks to be credited as monthly support should only cover those incurred for sustenance and household expenses

Dempsey v. RTC 164 SCRA 384 Facts: Janalita Rapada cohabited with Joel Dempsey without the benefit of marriage and Christine Marie was born. The child receives monthly support from him in the sum of $150. Janalita seeks for the accused to declare Christina Marie as his dependent and after his American citizenship. Dempsey freely and voluntarily and spontaneously entered a plea of guilty to the offenses charged against him which was abandonment and failure to provide adequate support for the child though he had the means to do so. Municipal Trial Court found him to be guilty. He appealed for the penalty of imprisonment be changed into a fine and not to be acquitted. RTC reversed the earlier decision.

Relevant issue #1: WON Christina is entitled to the rights arising from the parental responsibility of her father, she being an illegitimate child.

Held: Yes. Illegitimate children have rights of the same nature as legitimate and adopted children. This is enunciated in Art. 3 of PD 603 which provides that all children shall be entitled to the rights herein set forth without distinction as to legitimacy or illegitimacy, sex, social status, religion, political antecedents, and other factors.

Relevant issue#2: WON as part of the civil liability, the accused is required to recognize Christina as his natural.

Held: No. The recognition of a child by her father is provided for in the NCC and now in the FC. In this criminal prosecution, where the accused pleaded guilty to criminal charges and the issue of recognition was not specifically and fully heard and tried, the trial court committed error when it ordered recognition of a natural child as

Republic vs. Bermudez Lorino 449 SCRA 57 (January 19, 2005) Gloria abandoned husband who was a violent alcoholic. They were separated for 9 years. The trial courts ruling that the husband was presumptively dead is final. Republic of the Philippines VS. Bermudez LorinoG.R. No. 160258. January 19, 2005

Facts: Gloria Bermudez and Francisco Lorino were married in June 1987. The wife was unaware that her husband was a habitual drinker with violent attitude and character and had the propensity to go out with his friends to the point of being unable to work. In 1991 she left him and returned to her parents together with her three children. She went abroad to work for her support her children. From the time she left him, she had no communication with him or his relatives.In 2000, nine years after leaving her husband, Gloria filed a verified petition with the RTC under the rules on Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law. The lower court issued an order for the publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation.In November 7, 2001, the RTC granted the summary petition. Although the judgment was final and executors under the provisions of Act. 247 of the Family Code, the OSG for the Republic of the Philippines filed a notice of appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the factual and legal bases for a judicial declaration of presumptive death under Art 41 of the Family Code were duly established.

Held: Art. 238 of the Family Code under Title XI Summary Judicial Proceeding in the Family Law, sets the tenor for cases scoured by these rules, to wit:Art238. Until modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all cases provided for in this Code requiring summary court proceeding. Such cases shall be decided in an expeditions manner with out regards technical rules.The judge of the RTC fully complied with the above-cited provision by expeditiously rending judgment within ninety (90) days after the formal offer of evidence by the petitioner.

Republic vs. Court of Appeals 458 SCRA 200 (May 6, 2005)Apolinaria filed for presumptive death of her husband Clemente Jomoc after being absent for 9 years. Such declaration is under a summary proceeding.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS,et.al.458 SCRA 200 (2005), THIRD DIVISIONApolinaria Malinao filed a petition before the Ormoc Regional Trial Court for the Declaration of Presumptive Death of her Absentee Spouse Clemente P. Jomoc. The petition was thereafter granted by the trial court. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Notice of Appeal. The trial court disapproved the Notice of Appeal on the ground that the present case is a special proceeding which requires that a record of appeal be filed and served pursuant to Section 2 (a) Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Republic filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals contending that the declaration of presumptive death of a person under Article 41 of the Family Code is not a special proceeding. The CA affirmed the trial courts decision.ISSUE:Whether or not a petition for declaration of the presumptive death of a person is in the nature of a special proceeding.HELD:Title XI of the Family Code, entitled SUMMARY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN THE FAMILY LAW contains Article 238 which provides that unless modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules in the said Title shall apply in all cases provided for in the Code requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to technical rules.