185-ramirez-vs-redfern-gr-l-26026-dec.-31-1926-digestf.docx

G.R. No. L-26062

December 31, 1926

JOSE V. RAMIREZ and ELOISA DE MARCAIDA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. J. R. REDFERN, defendant-appellee. TOPIC: QUASI-CONTRACTS FACTS: Defendant J.R. Redfern had been providing cash support to Mrs. Redfern and their children from 1910 until 1922, however, the amount of support was reduced in 1921 and 1922 due to his financial situation. Spouses plaintiffs alleged that Mrs. Redfern, defendant’s wife and sister of plaintiff Mrs. Eloisa Ramirez, obtained from the latter the sums of £600, £185, and P875 in 1920 as advances for the support and maintenance of Mrs. Redfern. Plaintiffs brought the action against the defendant for the recovery of the said sums. Defendant averred that he is not liable to plaintiffs for the sums of money sought to be recovered, because these were delivered to defendant's wife without his knowledge or consent and when there was no necessity. The trial court ruled in favor of defendant. ISSUE: Whether the defendant is liable to the amount advanced by plaintiffs to his wife. HELD: No. First paragraph of article 1894 of the Civil Code provides that "When without the knowledge of the person who is bound to give support to a dependent, a stranger supplies it, the latter shall be entitled to recover the same from the former, unless it appears that he gave it out of charity, and without the expectation of recovering it." For one to recover under the said provisions, first, the support has been furnished to a dependent of one bound to give support but who fails to do so; second, the support was supplied without the knowledge of the person charged with the duty. In this case, Mrs. Redfern accepted assistance from another, without making any complaint to her husband or any of his agents with regard to her allowance. 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.

-harl-

1