Javier v. Lucero

DOCTRINE: Under the new Civil Code, article 290 support also includes the education of the person to be supported "until he complete his education or training for some profession, trade or vocation even beyond the age of majority.”

Under the New Civil Code articles 303 and 921 the wife forfeits her husband’s support after "she has accused (him) of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, and the accusation has been found to be false."

FACTS: At the time of the marriage between plaintiff Salud R. Arca and defendant Alfredo Javier, they had already begotten a son named Alfredo Javier Junior. Alfredo Javier left for the United States. His wife Salud R. Arca, who is from Tanza, Cavite, chose to live with defendant’s parents at Naic, Cavite. But for certain incompatibility of character, plaintiff Salud R. Arca had found it necessary to leave defendant’s parents’ abode and transfer her residence to Tanza, Cavite — her native place. Alfredo Javier brought an action for divorce against plaintiff Salud R. Arca before the Circuit Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, USA. The Circuit Court of Mobile County rendered judgment decreeing dissolution of the marriage of Salud R. Arca end Alfredo Javier, and granting the latter a decree of divorce dated April 9, 1941. Thereupon, the evidence discloses that some time in 1946 defendant Alfredo Javier returned to the Philippines but went back to the United States.

Alfredo Javier arrived in the Philippines armed with two decrees of divorce — one against his first wife Salud R. Arca and the other against him by his second wife Thelma Francis — issued by the Circuit Court of Mobile County, State of Alabama, USA, defendant Alfredo Javier married Maria Odvina.

At the instance of plaintiff Salud R. Arca an information for bigamy was filed by the City Fiscal of Manila. However, defendant Alfredo Javier was acquitted.

In an action for alimony, the respondent judge ordered Alfredo Javier to give a monthly allowance of P60 to his wife Salud R. Arca and their son Alfredo Javier Jr.

The husband filed a notice of appeal. Meanwhile the wife and the son presented a motion for "support pendente lite" "even pending the final determination of the case on appeal." The judge directed Alfredo Javier to pay the monthly pensions notwithstanding the pendency of his appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Alfredo Javier, Jr. is entitled for support.

HELD: Under the new Civil Code, article 290 support also includes the education of the person to be supported "until he complete his education or training for some profession, trade or vocation even beyond the age of majority" and on the basis of this article support was granted to Alfredo Javier Junior. Said the Court, "while it is true that plaintiff Alfredo Javier Junior, who was born on December 2, 1931, has reached the age of majority on December 2, 1952, yet, under the last part of article 290 of the new Civil Code, support may be given him even beyond the age of majority in order to enable him to complete his education, for some trade or profession."

Under the New Civil Code articles 303 and 921 the wife forfeits her husband’s support after "she has accused (him) of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, and the accusation has been found to be false." If bigamy is such a crime, and if her accusation had been found to be false, Salud Arca would lose her privilege. But the accusation was not "found to be false." Admittedly, he married a third time without the first marriage having been dissolved; but he was cleared of the bigamy charge for lack of criminal intent, inasmuch as he believed his divorce obtained in the U. S., had already ended his first marriage to Salud R. Arca. Such acquittal is no different from an acquittal on reasonable doubt, which in our opinion, and in the opinion of a member of the Code Commission that framed the New Civil Code, would not be ground to forfeit her right to support.

Of course, the question whether Alfredo Javier’s prosecution for bigamy and subsequent acquittal extinguished his obligation to maintain his complaining spouse will definitely be decided when the main case is reviewed on appeal. Other aspects of the issue could then undoubtedly be the subject of research and elucidation. Nevertheless we briefly explain our first impressions or provisional conclusion in the task of examining the alleged misuse by respondent judge of his prerogatives. It is markworthy that the son has not forfeited his right to support.