G.R. No. 185595. January 9, 2013.

* the commencement of the proper action or proceeding, or at any time prior to

the judgment or final order.—The Rules of Court provide for the provisional
MA. CARMINIA C. CALDERON represented by her Attorney-In-Fact, Marycris V. remedy of support pendente lite which may be availed of at the
Baldevia, petitioner, vs. JOSE ANTONIO F. ROXAS and COURT OF APPEALS, commencement of the proper action or proceeding, or at any time prior to the
respondents. judgment or final order. On March 4, 2003, this Court promulgated the Rule on
Provisional Orders which shall govern the issuance of provisional orders during
the pendency of cases for the declaration of nullity of marriage, annulment of
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; “Interlocutory Order” and “Final voidable marriage and legal separation. These include orders for spousal
Orders,” Distinguished.—This Court has laid down the distinction between support, child support, child custody, visitation rights, hold departure,
interlocutory and final orders, as follows: x x x A “final” judgment or order is one protection and administration of common property.
that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in
respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the
evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and Same; Civil Procedure; Interlocutory Orders; An interlocutory order merely
obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve
order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res judicata or the merits of the case.—The word interlocutory refers to something intervening
prescription. Once rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point
the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy. An interlocutory
concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the order merely resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done
parties’ next move (which among others, may consist of the filing of a motion to resolve the merits of the case. In contrast, a judgment or order is considered
for new trial or reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately, of final if the order disposes of the action or proceeding completely, or terminates
course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes “final” or, to a particular stage of the same action. Clearly, whether an order or resolution is
use the established and more distinctive term, “final and executory.” x x x x final or interlocutory is not dependent on compliance or noncompliance by a
Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end party to its directive, as what petitioner suggests. It is also important to
the Court’s task of adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining their emphasize the temporary or provisional nature of the assailed orders.
rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other
things remain to be done by the Court, is “interlocutory” e.g., an order denying
a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules, or granting a motion for
Same; Provisional Remedies; Provisional remedies are writs and processes
extension of time to file a pleading, or authorizing amendment thereof, or
granting or denying applications for postponement, or production or inspection available during the pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a
litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests therein pending
of documents or things, etc. Unlike a “final” judgment or order, which is
appealable, as above pointed out, an “interlocutory” order may not be rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the
case.—Provisional remedies are writs and processes available during the
questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be
taken from the final judgment rendered in the case. pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and
protect certain rights and interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes
of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case. They are provisional
because they constitute temporary measures availed of during the pendency of
Same; Provisional Remedies; Support Pendente Lite; The Rules of Court provide the action, and they are ancillary because they are mere incidents in and are
for the provisional remedy of support pendente lite which may be availed of at
dependent upon the result of the main action. The subject orders on the matter On May 19, 1998, the trial court issued an Order4 granting petitioner’s
of support pendente lite are but an incident to the main action for declaration application for support pendente lite. Said order states in part:
of nullity of marriage.

…Accordingly, the defendant is hereby ordered to contribute to the support of

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of the above-named minors, (aside from 50% of their school tuition fees which the
Appeals. defendant has agreed to defray, plus expenses for books and other school
supplies), the sum of P42,292.50 per month, effective May 1, 1998, as his share
in the monthly support of the children, until further orders from this Court. The
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. first monthly contribution, i.e., for the month of May 1998, shall be given by the
defendant to the plaintiff within five (5) days from receipt of a copy of this
Order. The succeeding monthly contributions of P42,292.50 shall be directly
given by the defendant to the plaintiff without need of any demand, within the
  M.B. Tomacruz & Associates Law Offices for petitioner.
first five (5) days of each month beginning June 1998. All expenses for books
  MCP Law Office for respondent. and other school supplies shall be shouldered by the plaintiff and the defendant,
share and share alike. Finally, it is understood that any claim for support-in-
  Libra Law Office collaborating counsel for respondent. arrears prior to May 1, 1998, may be taken up later in the course of the
proceedings proper.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
x x x x

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the

Decision1 dated September 9, 2008 and Resolution2 dated December 15, 2008 SO ORDERED.5
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 85384. The CA affirmed the
Orders dated March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Parañaque City, Branch 260 in Civil Case No. 97-0608.
The aforesaid order and subsequent orders for support pendente lite were the
subject of G.R. No. 139337 entitled “Ma. Carminia C. Roxas v. Court of Appeals
and Jose Antonio F. Roxas” decided by this Court on August 15, 2001.6 The
Petitioner Ma. Carminia C. Calderon and private respondent Jose Antonio F. Decision in said case declared that “the proceedings and orders issued by the
Roxas, were married on December 4, 1985 and their union produced four trial court in the application for support pendente lite (and the main complaint
children. On January 16, 1998, petitioner filed an Amended Complaint3 for the for annulment of marriage) in the re-filed case, that is, in Civil Case No. 97-0608
declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity were not rendered null and void by the omission of a statement in the
under Art. 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. certificate of non-forum shopping regarding the prior filing and dismissal
without prejudice of Civil Case No. 97-0523 which involves the same parties.”
The assailed orders for support pendente lite were thus reinstated and the trial court through his overpayments in other aspects such as the children’s school
court resumed hearing the main case. tuition fees, real estate taxes and other necessities.

Petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration of the March 7, 2005 Order was
denied on May 4, 2005.10
On motion of petitioner’s counsel, the trial court issued an Order dated October
11, 2002 directing private respondent to give support in the amount of
P42,292.50 per month starting April 1, 1999 pursuant to the May 19, 1998
Order.7 On May 16, 2005, the trial court rendered its Decision11 in Civil Case No. 97-
0608 decreeing thus:

On February 11, 2003, private respondent filed a Motion to Reduce Support

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring (sic):
citing, among other grounds, that the P42,292.50 monthly support for the
children as fixed by the court was even higher than his then P20,800.00 monthly
salary as city councilor.8
1. Declaring null and void the marriage between plaintiff [Ma.] Carmina C.
Roxas and defendant Jose Antonio Roxas solemnized on December 4, 1985 at
San Agustin Convent, in Manila. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila is hereby
After hearing, the trial court issued an Order9 dated March 7, 2005 granting the
motion to reduce support and denying petitioner’s motion for spousal support, ordered to cancel the marriage contract of the parties as appearing in the
Registry of Marriage as the same is void;
increase of the children’s monthly support pendente lite and support-in-arrears.
The trial court considered the following circumstances well-supported by
documentary and testimonial evidence: (1) the spouses’ eldest child, Jose
Antonio, Jr. is a Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman and is already earning a 2.  Awarding the custody of the parties’ minor children Maria Antoinette
monthly salary; (2) all the children stay with private respondent on weekends in Roxas, Julian Roxas and Richard Roxas to their mother herein petitioner, with
their house in Pasay City; (3) private respondent has no source of income except the respondent hereby given his visitorial and or custodial rights at [sic] the
his salary and benefits as City Councilor; (4) the voluminous documents express conformity of petitioner.
consisting of official receipts in payment of various billings including school
tuition fees, private tutorials and purchases of children’s school supplies,
personal checks issued by private respondent, as well as his own testimony in 3.  Ordering the respondent Jose Antonio Roxas to provide support to the
court, all of which substantiated his claim that he is fulfilling his obligation of children in the amount of P30,000.00 a month, which support shall be given
supporting his minor children during the pendency of the action; (5) there is no directly to petitioner whenever the children are in her custody, otherwise, if the
proof presented by petitioner that she is not gainfully employed, the spouses children are in the provisional custody of respondent, said amount of support
being both medical doctors; (6) the unrebutted allegation of private respondent shall be recorded properly as the amounts are being spent. For that purpose the
that petitioner is already in the United States; and (7) the alleged arrearages of respondent shall then render a periodic report to petitioner and to the Court to
private respondent was not substantiated by petitioner with any evidence while show compliance and for monitoring. In addition, the respondent is ordered to
private respondent had duly complied with his obligation as ordered by the support the proper schooling of the children providing for the payment of the
tuition fees and other school fees and charges including transportation Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA.
expenses and allowances needed by the children for their studies.

Hence, this petition raising the following issues:

4. Dissolving the community property or conjugal partnership property of the
parties as the case may be, in accordance with law.
A. DID THE CA COMMIT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION and/or REVERSIBLE
ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT THE RTC ORDERS DATED MARCH 7, 2005 AND
Let copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the Solicitor General, the MAY 4, 2005 ARE MERELY INTERLOCUTORY?
Office of the City Prosecutor, Parañaque City, and the City Civil Registrar of
Parañaque City and Manila.
B. DID THE CA COMMIT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION and/or REVERSIBLE
ERROR WHEN IT DISMISSED OUTRIGHT THE APPEAL FROM SAID RTC ORDERS,
SO ORDERED.12 WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL ON THE MERITS?14

On June 14, 2005, petitioner through counsel filed a Notice of Appeal from the The core issue presented is whether the March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005 Orders
Orders dated March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005. on the matter of support pendente lite are interlocutory or final.

In her appeal brief, petitioner emphasized that she is not appealing the Decision This Court has laid down the distinction between interlocutory and final orders,
dated May 16, 2005 which had become final as no appeal therefrom had been as follows:
brought by the parties or the City Prosecutor or the Solicitor General. Petitioner
pointed out that her appeal is “from the RTC Order dated March 7, 2005, issued
prior to the rendition of the decision in the main case”, as well as the May 4, x x x A “final” judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving
2005 Order denying her motion for partial reconsideration.13 nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication
on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, declares
categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party
By Decision dated September 9, 2008, the CA dismissed the appeal on the is in the right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for
ground that granting the appeal would disturb the RTC Decision of May 16, 2005 instance, of res judicata or prescription. Once rendered, the task of the Court is
which had long become final and executory. The CA further noted that ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities
petitioner failed to avail of the proper remedy to question an interlocutory of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court
order. except to await the parties’ next move (which among others, may consist of the
filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal)
and ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it
becomes “final” or, to use the established and more distinctive term, “final and custody, visitation rights, hold departure, protection and administration of
executory.” common property.

x x x x Petitioner contends that the CA failed to recognize that the interlocutory aspect
of the assailed orders pertains only to private respondent’s motion to reduce
support which was granted, and to her own motion to increase support, which
Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end was denied. Petitioner points out that the ruling on support in arrears which
the Court’s task of adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining their have remained unpaid, as well as her prayer for reimbursement/payment under
rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other the May 19, 1998 Order and related orders were in the nature of final orders
things remain to be done by the Court, is “interlocutory” e.g., an order denying assailable by ordinary appeal considering that the orders referred to under
a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules, or granting a motion for Sections 1 and 4 of Rule 61 of the Rules of Court can apply only prospectively.
extension of time to file a pleading, or authorizing amendment thereof, or Thus, from the moment the accrued amounts became due and demandable, the
granting or denying applications for postponement, or production or inspection orders under which the amounts were made payable by private respondent
of documents or things, etc. Unlike a “final” judgment or order, which is have ceased to be provisional and have become final.
appealable, as above pointed out, an “interlocutory” order may not be We disagree.
questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be
taken from the final judgment rendered in the case.15 [Emphasis supplied] The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the
commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or matter but
The assailed orders relative to the incident of support pendente lite and support is not a final decision of the whole controversy.18 An interlocutory order merely
in arrears, as the term suggests, were issued pending the rendition of the resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve
decision on the main action for declaration of nullity of marriage, and are the merits of the case. In contrast, a judgment or order is considered final if the
therefore interlocutory. They did not finally dispose of the case nor did they order disposes of the action or proceeding completely, or terminates a
consist of a final adjudication of the merits of petitioner’s claims as to the particular stage of the same action.19 Clearly, whether an order or resolution is
ground of psychological incapacity and other incidents as child custody, support final or interlocutory is not dependent on compliance or noncompliance by a
and conjugal assets. party to its directive, as what petitioner suggests. It is also important to
emphasize the temporary or provisional nature of the assailed orders.

The Rules of Court provide for the provisional remedy of support pendente lite
which may be availed of at the commencement of the proper action or Provisional remedies are writs and processes available during the pendency of
proceeding, or at any time prior to the judgment or final order.16 On March 4, the action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain
2003, this Court promulgated the Rule on Provisional Orders17 which shall rights and interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate
govern the issuance of provisional orders during the pendency of cases for the effects, of a final judgment in the case. They are provisional because they
declaration of nullity of marriage, annulment of voidable marriage and legal constitute temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action,
separation. These include orders for spousal support, child support, child and they are ancillary because they are mere incidents in and are dependent
upon the result of the main action.20 The subject orders on the matter of
support pendente lite are but an incident to the main action for declaration of
nullity of marriage.
(c) An interlocutory order;

Moreover, private respondent’s obligation to give monthly support in the

amount fixed by the RTC in the assailed orders may be enforced by the court (d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
itself, as what transpired in the early stage of the proceedings when the court
cited the private respondent in contempt of court and ordered him arrested for
his refusal/failure to comply with the order granting support pendente lite.21 A (e)  An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession
few years later, private respondent filed a motion to reduce support while or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground
petitioner filed her own motion to increase the same, and in addition sought vitiating consent;
spousal support and support in arrears. This fact underscores the provisional
character of the order granting support pendente lite. Petitioner’s theory that
the assailed orders have ceased to be provisional due to the arrearages incurred (f) An order of execution;
by private respondent is therefore untenable.

(g)  A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or
Under Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while
amended, appeal from interlocutory orders is not allowed. Said provision reads: the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and

SECTION 1. Subject of appeal.—An appeal may be taken from a judgment or (h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice;
final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein
when declared by these Rules to be appealable.

In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable,
the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
No appeal may be taken from: (Emphasis supplied.)

(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration; The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 provided that the interlocutory
order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief discretion. Having chosen the wrong remedy in questioning the subject
from judgment; interlocutory orders of the RTC, petitioner’s appeal was correctly dismissed by
the CA.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED, for lack of merit.
The Decision dated September 9, 2008 and Resolution dated December 15,
2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 85384 are AFFIRMED.

With costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—In provisional remedies, particularly that of preliminary attachment, the

distinction between the issuance and the implementation of the writ of
attachment is of utmost importance to the validity of the writ. (Torres vs.
Satsatin, 605 SCRA 453 [2009])

A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that a party may resort to in

order to preserve and protect certain rights and interests during the pendency
of an action. (The Incorporators of Mindanao Institute Inc. vs. The United
Church of Christ in the Philippines, 668 SCRA 637 [2012])

——o0o—— Calderon vs. Roxas, 688 SCRA 330, G.R. No. 185595 January 9,
2013