The plaintiffs are Jose V. Ramirez and his wife, Eloisa de Marcaida. The defendant is J. R. Redfern. Jose V. Ramirez and J. R. Redfern are brothers-in-law.
In 1908, J. R. Redfern took his wife and three minor children to England and left them there. He returned to the Philippines the following year. Beginning with 1910 and continuing until 1922, Mr. Redfern provided his wife with funds for her expenses Mr. Redferd is now furnishing his wife P300 per month for the support of herself and one child. The two grown sons are employed and are earning their own living.
In 1920, while still in England, Mrs. Redfern obtained from her sister, Mrs. Ramirez, the sum of £600. Mrs. Redfern later secured an additional £185 from her sister in England. Mrs. Redfern did not make use of this money until 1922. Eight hundred seventy-five pesos were advanced by Mr. and Mrs. Ramirez to Mrs. Redfern after the latter had return to Manila.
The action is brought by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendant the sums of $600, £185, and P875 for alleged advances to the defendant’s wife for her support and maintenance. The judgment of the trial court absolves the defendant from the demands of the plaintiffs with costs against the plaintiffs.
Whether or not the plaintiffs can demand support from the defendants relying on Article 216 of the Family Code.
RULING:
No. For one to recover under the provisions of Art 216 of the Family Code, it must be alleged and proved, first, that support has been furnished a dependent of one bound to give support but who fails to do so; second, that the support was supplied without the knowledge of the person charged with the duty. The negative qualification is when the support is given without the expectation of recovering it.
In the case at bar, there is a failure of proof as to the first essential, and possibly the second essential, of the law.
The husband and wife are mutually bound to support each other. Parents are also required to bring up and educate their children. But in this connection, the point of interest is that the wife accepted assistance from another, when it is not shown that she had ever made any complaint to her husband or any of his agents with regard to her allowance. Mr. Redfern's reason for reducing the allowance, he says, was his precarious financial situation in 1921 and 1922. Before one can tender succor to the wife of another with an expectation or recouping himself for the loan, the husband should be given an opportunity to render the needful assistance. Also, it is clear that there is evidence in the record which corroborates the finding of the trial judge that the defendant was amply providing for his wife and children in London.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento