The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that after the finality of their nullification of marriage, a former husband has no more obligation to support his former wife.
However, the SC stressed that as the father, the former husband has the obligation to support his children “if still studying and unemployed.”
Citing its previous ruling, the SC said that “although the obligation to provide support arising from parental authority ends upon the emancipation of the child, the same obligation arising from spousal and general familial ties ideally lasts during the obligee's lifetime,” in this case with the former husband.
The new ruling of the SC was contained in a resolution that was released last March 29 in a case docketed as G.R. No. 231619. It was written by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
(Manila Bulletin decided not to print the full name of the husband. Parties in the case were identified merely as husband, wife, first child, and second child.)
Case records showed that the couple was married in 1989. The wife filed a case with the regional trial court (RTC) and sought protection under the provisions of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, for “physical, emotional, and economic abuse” during their marriage.
On Sept. 10, 2008, the RTC issued a permanent protection order (PPO) in favor of the wife.
The trial court directed the husband to support the wife and their two children “if still studying and unemployed equivalent to 50 percent (for the time being) of his income or salaries.”
The RTC identified the sources of salaries and income as those from the husband’s law firm, from another law office, and from a consultancy-trading firm.
The amount of support must be withheld regularly without delay, and failure of the husband, his law office, the other law firm, and the consultancy-trading firm to comply without justifiable cause will result in indirect contempt of court, the RTC ordered.
Since the husband did not appeal, the RTC decision became final and executory on Jan. 30, 2013.
On July 16, 2013, the wife filed with RTC a motion for execution on support. The husband opposed as he claimed that his wife no longer needed protection since she has been allegedly cohabiting with another man and their nullification of marriage was already pending in court.
The RTC granted the wife’s motion for execution on April 22, 2014 as it stressed that the PPO “shall be in force and effect.” On Feb. 27, 2015, the court issued the writ of execution.
When the husband’s plea for RTC to stay the writ of execution was denied, he elevated the issue before the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The CA ruled that the wife timely filed her plea for a writ of execution within the five-year period under the rules and thus, the husband could not ignore the writ of execution.
The appellate court junked the husband’s claim that he was not obligated to support his first child since she was already married and of legal age.
Also junked by the CA was the husband’s allegation that the second child was not his own as it pointed out that “filiation cannot be collaterally attacked.”
The husband elevated the case to the SC which partially granted his petition.
Among other things, the husband told the SC that he no longer has obligation to support her wife since their marriage had been nullified; no violence had been inflicted on his former wife since 2007; his former wife had many relationships with other men; had graduated from law school and had taken the bar examinations; had been charged with adultery; and the care and custody of the second child had been placed with the maternal grandmother.
In resolving the issue, the SC cited that the plea for the execution of the rulings contained in the PPO was seasonably filed by the wife. It also noted that the marriage between the husband and the wife had been nullified on Dec. 27, 2016 and became final and executory on March 3, 2017.
The SC also said:
“Thus, after the final judgment nullifying the marriage, ‘the obligation of mutual support between the spouses ceases.’
“Petitioner (husband) and respondent's (wife) marriage having been declared void, they are no longer obliged to give spousal support to each other. Nonetheless, the rest of the reliefs granted under the Permanent Protection Order in favor of respondent shall remain in full force and effect.
“Unlike in an ordinary case for spousal support, the grant of support under a permanent protection order also serves to protect the offended party from harm and violence and help them recover and regain control over their life. This added layer differentiates it from ordinary legal support between spouses and other dependents provided under the Family Code, which is solely meant to provide subsistence.
“A permanent protection order under Republic Act No. 9262 ‘shall be effective until revoked by a court upon application of the person in whose favor the order was issued.’ Thus, here, it is respondent who may apply to have the Permanent Protection Order revoked, not petitioner.
“This Court notes that most of the reliefs granted under the Permanent Protection Order does not depend on whether a marriage between petitioner and respondent subsists. Respondent may still be entitled to the other reliefs even if she is no longer petitioner's wife, because the determining factor in the grant of the relief is whether the offended party was subjected to physical, sexual, psychological, or economic abuse.
“In any case, the adultery case filed against respondent does not affect her entitlement to the reliefs, especially since she has not been found guilty of the crime charged.
“Furthermore, the grant of support in the Permanent Protection Order pertains to respondent and her children with petitioner. Thus, while petitioner is no longer obligated to legally support respondent because their marriage was nullified, his obligation to provide support to his minor child (second child) does not cease even if care and custody are no longer with respondent. Neither does it depend on petitioner's relationship with respondent.
“WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Oct. 3, 2016 Decision and May 23, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143344 is MODIFIED. The Writ of Execution issued by the Regional Trial Court on Feb. 27, 2015 shall remain VALID as to all reliefs granted under the Permanent Protection Order, except as to the grant of legal support in favor of respondent. Respondent shall no longer be entitled to legal support from the time of the finality of the Decision declaring her marriage with petitioner void.
“Petitioner shall likewise be liable for six percent interest for any delinquent support from the time of the issuance of the Permanent Protection Order.... SO ORDERED.”