Text of the provision
Art. 49. During the pendency of the action and in the absence of adequate provisions in a written agreement between the spouses, the Court shall provide for the support of the spouses and the custody and support of their common children.
The Court shall give paramount consideration to the moral and material welfare of said children and their choice of the parent with whom they wish to remain as provided to[sic] in Title IX. It shall also provide for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent.
(n)
Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209, approved July 6, 1987. The Code took effect on August 3, 1988 (Republic v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005). Reproduced in full. The notation (n) indicates a new provision with no direct Civil Code antecedent. The phrase "provided to in Title IX" carries a stray "to," identically in LawPhil and ChanRobles; marked [sic].
What this article means
While a nullity or annulment case is still pending — and the spouses have no adequate written agreement of their own — the court must step in and provide for the support of the spouses and the custody and support of their common children, plus visitation rights for the parent who does not have custody.
The governing standard is the moral and material welfare of the children, and their own choice of which parent to remain with is given weight as provided in Title IX of the Code (parental authority), not treated as automatically controlling.
Questions about this provision
- Who has custody of our kids while our legal separation case is pending?
- Who supports our children while our annulment case is still in court?
Related provisions
- Article 50 — the property and child-related effects once the case is finally decided.
- Title IX — parental authority and the weight given to a child's choice of parent.
Cases citing this article
- Ma. Carminia C. Roxas vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 139337, August 15, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Eric Jonathan Yu vs. Caroline T. Yu, G.R. No. 164915, March 10, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Gerardo B. Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 123450, August 31, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jocelyn Pablo-Gualberto vs. Crisanto Rafaelito Gualberto V, G.R. No. 154994, June 28, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Carlitos E. Silva vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 114742, July 17, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.