Mendoza vs CA Digest
142-c. MENDOZA vs CA
CECILIO MENDOZA vs THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and LUISA DE LA ROSA MENDOZA
April 24, 1967
REYES, J.B.L., J.
Petition for Review of a decision of the CA
SHORT VERSION: Luisa and Cecilio are married. Cecilio leaves her to work in the US. Luisa files a case for support. Cecilio files 1st motion to dismiss which is denied. Cecilio files answer with counterclaim challenging the validity of his marriage with Luisa. Cecilio files 2nd motion to dismiss on the ground of lack cause of action because it failed to allege that it complied with a condition precedent. Cecilio loses all the way up to CA. SC says that Cecilio’s contention is the general rule. However, the complaint is for future support and his counterclaim challenged their marriage, both of which fall under the exceptions to the rule for needing earnest efforts towards a compromise.
FACTS: Luisa de la Rosa Mendoza filed a case for support against Cecilio Medoza in the CFI Nueva Ecija.
Alleged that they were married in 1953 and have been living as husband and wife until 1954, when Cecilio left for the US to further his studies and practice his profession
Since then, he has "without justifiable cause or reason deliberately abandoned and neglected her and despite her repeated demands, has failed and refused to provide for her maintenance and support, who is alleged to be pregnant, sickly and without any source of revenue
Cecilio is now employed in a US hospital and earning an average of $200 a month
He also is part owner of a land in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, assessed at P32,330.00 in 1955
Cecilio filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. This was denied.
Cecilio filed an answer with counterclaim, questioning the validity of their marriage. Luisa replied.
Cecilio filed a second motion to dismiss on the ground of the complaint’s failure to state a cause of action because it contained no allegation that earnest efforts toward a
CECILIO MENDOZA vs THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and LUISA DE LA ROSA MENDOZA
April 24, 1967
REYES, J.B.L., J.
Petition for Review of a decision of the CA
SHORT VERSION: Luisa and Cecilio are married. Cecilio leaves her to work in the US. Luisa files a case for support. Cecilio files 1st motion to dismiss which is denied. Cecilio files answer with counterclaim challenging the validity of his marriage with Luisa. Cecilio files 2nd motion to dismiss on the ground of lack cause of action because it failed to allege that it complied with a condition precedent. Cecilio loses all the way up to CA. SC says that Cecilio’s contention is the general rule. However, the complaint is for future support and his counterclaim challenged their marriage, both of which fall under the exceptions to the rule for needing earnest efforts towards a compromise.
FACTS: Luisa de la Rosa Mendoza filed a case for support against Cecilio Medoza in the CFI Nueva Ecija.
Alleged that they were married in 1953 and have been living as husband and wife until 1954, when Cecilio left for the US to further his studies and practice his profession
Since then, he has "without justifiable cause or reason deliberately abandoned and neglected her and despite her repeated demands, has failed and refused to provide for her maintenance and support, who is alleged to be pregnant, sickly and without any source of revenue
Cecilio is now employed in a US hospital and earning an average of $200 a month
He also is part owner of a land in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, assessed at P32,330.00 in 1955
Cecilio filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. This was denied.
Cecilio filed an answer with counterclaim, questioning the validity of their marriage. Luisa replied.
Cecilio filed a second motion to dismiss on the ground of the complaint’s failure to state a cause of action because it contained no allegation that earnest efforts toward a