G.R. No. 131286 March 18, 2004 6.
Jose filed an MR, but only questioned the amount of monthly
JOSE LAM, petitioner, vs. ADRIANA CHUA, respondent.
Topic: Support Pendente Lite
Emergency Recit: Adriana filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage, alleging psychological incapacity, against Jose Lam. The petition
failed to pray for support for their child, John Pail Lam. Adriana then filed a
Motion to Re-Open, which was granted. She then presented proof that their
marriage was bigamous. RTC held in favor of Adriana, declaring the
marriage void, and that support be given. Jose Lam filed an MR alleging that
a compromise agreement executed between Adriana and him already
provided support for their child. The issue raised is whether or Jose Lam is
still liable for support. No. The evidence was not sufficient in order to
establish the resources or means of each parent in giving support; nor does it
show how much support the child needs. The only evidence presented was
only the self-serving testimony of Adriana. Hence, the case was remanded
for further proceedings on the issue of support.
Doctrine: The right to support is of such nature that its allowance is
essentially provisional; for during the entire period that a needy party is
entitled to support, his or her alimony may be modified or altered, in
accordance with his increased or decreased needs, and with the means of
the giver. It cannot be regarded as subject to final determination.
Facts:
1. Adriana Chua filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
against Jose Lam, arguing that Jose was psychologically
incapacitated. They have agreed that the custody of John Paul Lam,
their child, will be with Adriana, subject to Joses visitation rights. The
complaint failed to claim and pray for the support of their child.
2. Summons was issued to Jose Lam, but Jose Lam failed to file a
responsive pleading. Upon the prosecutors investigation, there was
no collusion between the parties.
3. The trial court then set the case for hearing. Adriana was the lone
witness. She testified, among others, that she was the only one
spending for all the expenses of their child. She did not, however,
present any evidence regarding the amount of support needed by
John Paul, or the capacity of Jose to give support.
4. Adriana then filed an Urgent Motion to Re-Open, which was granted
as she had new evidence. Upon a new hearing set, Adriana
submitted two marriage contracts between Jose Lam and two other
women, issued before their marriage.
5. RTC held in favor of Adriana, declaring the marriage to be null and
void for being bigamous by nature. RTC also ordered Jose Lam to
give monthly support to John Paul for Php 20,000.
support. He argued that they have already executed a compromise
agreement where Adriana and Jose agreed to contribute Php
250,000 each to a common fund for the child.
7. RTC denied the MR, holding that the compromise agreement cannot
limit and/or affect the support ordered by the RTC.
8. CA affirmed the RTC. Hence, this petition for review.
Issue: W/N Jose Lam is still liable for support despite the compromise
agreement
Held: No. The trial court was wrong in awarding support.
1. The RTC and CA was correct insofar as they ruled that the amount
of support is by no means permanent. The right to support is of such
nature that its allowance is essentially provisional; for during the
entire period that a needy party is entitled to support, his or her
alimony may be modified or altered, in accordance with his increased
or decreased needs, and with the means of the giver. It cannot be
regarded as subject to final determination.
2. However, the RTC should have been aware that in determining the
amount of support to be awarded, such amount should be in
proportion to the resources or means of the giver and the necessities
of the recipient, pursuant to art. 194, 201 and 202 of the Family
Code.
3. The award for support must be based on the evidence presented in
the court. Such evidence must prove the capacity or resources of
both parents who are jointly obliged to support their children, as
provided for in the Family Code.
4. In this case, the only evidence presented by Adriana regarding her
clam for support is her testimony, where she was just asked How
much support do you want? and her answer of Php 20,000 to
Php25,000.. Also, the records show that the Court, immediately
after such response by Adriana, ordered Adriana to get the original
copy of the complaint in order to add the prayer for support and to
sign such addition.
5. Evidently, such testimony does not establish the amount needed by
the child, nor the amount that the parents are reasonably able to
give.
6. The RTCs action of merely ordering in open court that a prayer for
support be written and inserted in the petition does not constitute
proper amendment and notice to petitioner Jose Lam. Consequently,
Jose Lam was deprived of due process when the RTC decided to
hear such claim for support without giving Jose Lam the notice and
opportunity to refute such claim.
 7. The matter of support is a question that should be resolved by the
Pasay RTC, where the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is
filed.
8. Such being the case, the suit, insofar as the award for support, must
be remanded to the Pasay RTC.

Other Ruling:
1. Court held that the compromise agreement between Jose Lam and
Adriana is not a bar to any further award for support. Such cannot be
considered final and res judicata since any judgment for support is
always subject to modification, depending upon the needs of the
child and capabilities of the parents to give support.
2. However, the proceedings of the RTC is tainted:
a. First, the only ground raised in the petition was psychological
incapacity, but when the trial court granted the motion to re-
open, the newly-admitted evidence substantially changed
the petition of Adriana, shifting the ground for psych.
incapacity to bigamy Nor did she pray for support for their
child but was changed in the hearing for the new evidence.
This is not correct as there was no formal amendment ever
made.
b. Second, RTC did not give Jose Lam an opportunity to be
present in the presentation of evidence to refute the same as
he was never notified of the hearing for admission of new
evidence.
c. Third, Jose Lam was also never sent a copy of the Order
granting the Motion to Re-Open.
d. Laslty, evidence by respondent for her claim of support for
their child is insufficient, which RTC should not have granted
such.