Art.

202 CIVIL CODE OF THE

PhiupPines CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Art. 202
Jfe*
J-M. i?

m j
.
Art 202. Support in the cases referred to in the pre
fei S.ar
V. article shall be reduced or increased proportionf*g the husband claimed that in view of excessive payments
according to the reduction or increase of the nece v already made to her, her current claim for support could
of the recipient and the resources or means of the n 168 not be considered favorably. In other words, the husband
obliged to furnish the same. (297a) ers°n wanted her to get her current support from the excessive
payments previously made to her. Is the husband
contention correct or should the wife be given her current
COMMENT: allowance?
i (1) Proportionate Support ANS.: The wife should be given her current
allowance. Excessive payments made under valid although
Rl As much as possible, the law does not want to encourage "fir erroneous orders cannot compensate or offset claims for
1 separation of the spouses. Therefore, a large amount for current support. (Gorayeb v. Hashim, 4/ Phil. 87)
separation maintenance, should be rarely given. (Panuncio v
Sula, 34 O.G. No. 86, p. 1291) (c) In view of the fact that the amount of support granted
in a judgment may still be changed from time to time, in
this sense, the judgment for support never becomes final.
Ledesma Silva, et al. v. Peralta (Gorayeb u. Hashim, 47 Phil. 87; Advincula v. Advincula,
L-13114, Aug. 29, 1961 L-19065, Jan. 31, 1964)
FACTS: A putative father alleged that a judgment for (d) Whether or not the spouse asking for support is engaged
support of his son should be limited to what the Income Tax in a gainful occupation is immaterial; what is important
Law allows, a deduction for the support of the child. isTf she still needs financial assistance. (Canonizado u.
Almeda-Lopez, et al., L-13805, Sept. 30, 1960)
HELD: The contention is without merit. Income tax
deductions do not constitute a reasonable basis for the
amount of support, since the said income tax deduction merely Atienza v. Almeda-Lopez, et al.
represents the amount that the state is willing to exempt from L-18327, Aug. 24, 1962
0
I taxation. A wife sued her husband from whom she
FACTS:
had been living separately, for support. They entered into
whereby the wife would get P20 every 15
(2) Change in Amount of Support a compromise
support, and the husband further agreed
days by way of
(a) A wife was being given support by the husband by virtue to give her "a portion of his retirement pay." One and a
of judicial order of ÿcompetent court. The wife was living filed a motion alleging that her
half year later, the wife
apart from the husband. May the amount of allowance was about to retire from the Manila Radnjad
husband
being given be modified by the court? and was about to receive retirement
Company,
ANS.: Yes, the allowance may be changed by the She therefore prayed that she
the
be given
motion
1/2
and
of smd
benefitÿ
required the
court in case-"sufficient reasons*"exist for the c! The lower court granted
to the wife 1/2 of the rehremen
(Gorayeb v. Hashim, 47 Phil. 87) husband to deliver the theory that the
benefits The husband appealed
on
been in effect this amended the
(b) A wife was living apart from her husband and had order is null and void because compromise agreement,
that t e based on the
granted allowance by the court. It turned out previous decision executory.
needs, n already final and
amount allowed her was far in excess of her which he claims, is
day, when the wife asked for her regular monthly supp0
767
766