SECONDDIVISION

WILSONSY,G.R.No.124518
Petitioner,

Present:

QUISUMBING,J.,
versusChairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIOMORALES,
TINGA,and
COURTOFAPPEALS,VELASCO,JR.,JJ.
RegionalTrialCourtofManila,
Branch48,andMERCEDES
TANUYSY,Promulgated:
Respondents.
December27,2007

xx

DECISION

TINGA,J.:

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari

[1]
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure,petitionerWilsonSyassailstheDecision
[2]
dated29February1996oftheCourtof
Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 38936 and its Resolution
[3]
dated 15 April 1996 denying his
motionforreconsideration.
Thefollowingaretheantecedents:

On19January1994,respondentMercedesTanUySyfiledapetitionforhabeascorpus
againstpetitionerWilsonSybeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofManila,Branch48,docketedas
Special Proceeding No. 9469002. Respondent prayed that said writ be issued ordering
petitionertoproducetheirminorchildrenVanessaandJeremiahbeforethecourtandthatafter
hearing,theircareandcustodybeawardedtoherastheirmother.
[4]

Inhisanswer,petitionerprayedthatthecustodyoftheminorsbeawardedtohiminstead.
Petitioner maintained that respondent was unfit to take custody of the minors. He adduced the
followingreasons:firstly,respondentabandonedherfamilyin1992secondly,sheismentally
unstableandthirdly,shecannotprovidepropercaretothechildren.
[5]

After trial, the trial court caused the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and awarded
custodyofthechildrentorespondent,towit:

WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedmaintainingtothepetitionerthecustodyof
the minors Vanessa and Jeremiah, all surnamed UySy, without, however, prejudice to the
visitorial rights of the father, herein respondent, and the temporary arrangement of the custody
made by the parties during pendency of this proceeding is hereby revoked, and without any
furthereffect.TheCourtfurtherorderstherespondenttopaybywayofmonthlysupportforthe
minors,theamountofP50,000.00payabletopetitionerfrom[the]dateofjudgmentforfailureon
the part of respondent to show by preponderance of evidence that the petitioner is unfit to the
custodyoftheminorchildrenwhoareonly6and4yearsold.
[6]

Petitioner appealed the order of the trial court to the Court of Appeals. Before the
appellate court, he alleged that the trial court erred: (1) in awarding the custody of the minor
children solely to respondent and (2) in ordering him to provide respondent support in the
amountofP50,000.00permonth.
[7]

TheCourtofAppealsfoundnomeritintheappealandaffirmedthedecisionofthetrial
court.TheCourtofAppealsdidnotfindanyreasontodisturbtheconclusionsofthetrialcourt,
particularlypetitionersfailuretoprovebypreponderanceofevidencethatrespondentwasunfit
totakecustodyovertheminorchildren.

TheCourtofAppealsheldthatpetitionerwasnotabletosubstantiatehiscontentionthat
respondent was unfit to have custody of the children. On respondents supposed abandonment
of the family, the appellate court found instead that respondent had been driven away by
petitionersfamilybecauseofreligiousdifferences.RespondentsstayinTaiwanlikewisecould
hardly be called abandonment as she had gone there to earn enough money to reclaim her
children. Neither could respondents act of praying outdoors in the rain be considered as
evidenceofinsanityasitmaysimplybeanexpressionofonesfaith.Regardingtheallegation
thatrespondentwasunabletoprovideforadecentdwellingfortheminors,tothecontrary,the
appellate court was satisfied with respondents proof of her financial ability to provide her
childrenwiththenecessitiesoflife.
[8]

Astothesecondassignmentoferror,theCourtofAppealsheldthatquestionsastocare
and custody of children may be properly raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Moreover,petitionerwasproperlyheardonthematterrelativetotheissueofsupport.Hewas
questioned about his sources of income for the purpose of determining his ability to give
support. As to the propriety of the amount awarded, the appellate court was unwilling to alter
the trial courts conclusion for petitioner did not forthrightly testify on his actual income.
Neither did he produce income tax returns or other competent evidence, although within his
power to do so, to provide a fair indication of his resources. At any rate, the appellate court
declared that a judgment of support is never final and petitioner is not precluded at any time
fromseekingamodificationofthesameandproduceevidenceofhisclaim.
[9]

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision but the
same was denied.
[10]
Hence, this appeal by certiorari wherein petitioner asserts that: (1) the
CourtofAppealserredinawardingthecustodyoftheminorchildrensolelytorespondent(2)
theCourtofAppealshadnojurisdictiontoawardsupportinahabeascorpuscaseas:(a)support
wasneitherallegednorprayedforinthepetition(b)therewasnoexpressorimpliedconsent
onthepartofthepartiestolitigatetheissueand(c)Section6,Rule99oftheRulesofCourt
does not apply because the trial court failed to consider the Civil Code provisions on support
and(3)theawardofP50,000.00assupportisarbitrary,unjust,unreasonableandtantamountto
acleardeprivationofpropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw.
[11]

Forherpart,respondentclaimsthatpetitionerhadlosthisprivilegetoraisethefirstissue,
having failed to raise it before the appellate court. Anent the second issue, respondent takes
refuge in the appellate courts statement that the questions regarding the care and custody of
children may properly be adjudicated in a habeas corpus case. Regarding the third issue,
respondentmaintainsthattheamountofsupportawardediscorrectandproper.
[12]

There is no merit in the petition regarding the question of care and custody of the
children.

TheapplicableprovisionisSection213oftheFamilyCodewhichstatesthat:

Section213.Incaseofseparationoftheparents,parentalauthorityshallbeexercisedby
theparentdesignatedbytheCourt.TheCourtshalltakeintoaccountallrelevantconsiderations,
especiallythechoiceofthechildoversevenyearsofage,unlesstheparentisunfit.

Nochildundersevenyearsofageshallbeseparatedfromthemother,unlessthecourt
findscompellingreasonstoorderotherwise.

In case of legal separation of the parents, the custody of the minor children shall be
awarded to the innocent spouse, unless otherwise directed by the court in the interest of the
minorchildren.
[13]
But when the husband and wife are living separately and apart from each
other, without decree of the court, the court shall award the care, custody, and control of each
child as will be for his best interest, permitting the child to choose which parent he prefers to
livewithifheisoverseven(7)yearsofageunlesstheparentsochosenbeunfittotakecharge
ofthechildbyreasonofmoraldepravity,habitualdrunkennessorpoverty.
[14]

Inallcontroversiesregardingthecustodyofminors,thesoleandforemostconsideration
isthephysical,educational,socialandmoralwelfareofthechildconcerned,takingintoaccount
therespectiveresourcesandsocialandmoralsituationsofthecontendingparents.
[15]

However,thelawfavorsthemotherifsheisafitandproperpersontohavecustodyof
herchildrensothattheymaynotonlyreceiveherattention,care,supervisionbutalsohavethe
advantage and benefit of a mothers love and devotion for which there is no substitute.
[16]
Generally,thelove,solicitudeanddevotionofamothercannotbereplacedbyanotherandare
worth more to a child of tender years than all other things combined.
[17]
The Civil Code
Commission,inrecommendingthepreferenceforthemother,explained,thus:

Thegeneralruleisrecommendedinordertoavoidmanyatragedywhereamotherhas
seen her baby torn away from her. No man can sound the deep sorrows of a mother who is
deprivedofherchildoftenderage.Theexceptionallowedbytherulehastobeforcompelling
reasonsforthegoodofthechild:thosecasesmustindeedberare,ifthemothersheartisnot
tobeundulyhurt.Ifshehaserred,asincasesofadultery,thepenaltyofimprisonmentandthe
(relative)divorcedecreewillordinarilybesufficientpunishmentforher.Moreover,hermoral
dereliction will not have any effect upon the baby who is as yet unable to understand the
situation.
[18]

ThispreferencefavoringthemotheroverthefatherisevenreiteratedinSection6,Rule
99 of the Rules of Court (the Rule on Adoption and Custody of Minors) underscoring its
significance,towit:

SEC.6.Proceedingsastochildwhoseparentsareseparated.Appeal.Whenhusband
andwifearedivorcedorlivingseparatelyandapartfromeachother,andthequestionastothe
care, custody and control of a child or children of their marriage is brought before a Regional
TrialCourtbypetitionorasanincidenttoanyotherproceeding,thecourt,uponhearingthe
testimonyas maybepertinent,shall award the care, custody and control of each such child as
willbeforitsbestinterest,permittingthechildtochoosewhichparentitpreferstolivewithifit
beovertenyearsofage,unlesstheparentsochosenbeunfittotakechargeofthechildbyreason
ofmoraldepravity,habitualdrunkenness,incapacity,orpoverty.Ifuponsuchhearing,itappears
that both parents are improper persons to have the care, custody, and control of the child, the
courtmayeitherdesignatethepaternalormaternalgrandparentofthechild,orhisoldestbrother
orsister,orsomereputableanddiscreetpersontotakechargeofsuchchild,orcommitittoany
suitable asylum, childrens home, or benevolent society. The court may in conformity with the
provisions of the Civil Code order either or both parents to support or help support said child,
irrespective of who may be its custodian, and may make any order that is just and reasonable
permittingtheparentwhoisdeprivedofitscareandcustodytovisitthechildorhavetemporary
custodythereof.Eitherparentmayappealfromanordermadeinaccordancewiththeprovisions
ofthissection.Nochildundersevenyearsofageshallbeseparatedfromitsmother,unless
thecourtfindstherearecompellingreasonstherefor.(Emphasissupplied)

The abovequoted provision expressly acknowledges and authorizes that the matter of
careandcustodyofthechildrenmayberaisedandadjudicatedasanincidenttoanyproceeding,
suchasacaseforhabeascorpus.

Evidently, absent any compelling reason to the contrary, the trial court was correct in
restoring the custody of the children to the mother, herein respondent, the children being less
than seven years of age, at least at the time the case was decided. Moreover, petitioners
contention that respondent is unfit to have custody over the minor children has not been
substantiated as found by both courts below. Thus, it is already too late for petitioner to
reiteratetheassertionforonlyquestionsoflawmayberaisedbeforethisCourt.Furthermore,
the determination of whether the mother is fit or unfit to have custody over the children is a
matter well within the sound discretion of the trial court, and unless it is shown that said
discretionhasbeenabusedtheselectionwillnotbeinterferedwith.
[19]

Consequently,theCourtaffirmstheawardofcustodyinrespondentsfavor.

Now,theissueofsupport.

Article203oftheFamilyCodestatesthattheobligationtogivesupportisdemandable
from the time the person who has a right to receive the same needs it for maintenance, but it
shallnotbepaidexceptfromthedateofjudicialorextrajudicialdemand.ThecaseofJocsonv.
TheEmpireIns.Co.andJocsonLagniton
[20]
explainstherationaleforthisrule:

xxx Support does include what is necessary for the education and clothing of the
personentitledthereto(Art.290,NewCivilCode).Butsupportmustbedemandedandtheright
to it established before it becomes payable (Art. 298, New Civil Code Marcelo v. Estacio, 70
Phil.215).Fortherighttosupportdoesnotarisefromthemerefactofrelationship,evenfrom
therelationshipofparentsandchildren,butfromimperativenecessitywithoutwhichitcannot
be demanded, and the law presumes that such necessity does not exist unless support is
demanded(CivilCodeofthePhilippines,Annotated,Tolentino,Vol.1,p.181,citing8Manresa
685). In the present case, it does not appear that support for the minors, be it only for their
educationandclothing,waseverdemandedfromtheirfatherandtheneedforitdulyestablished.
Theneedforsupport,asalreadystated,cannotbepresumed,andespeciallymustthisbetruein
thepresentcasewhereitappearsthattheminorshadmeansoftheirown.
[21]

Asintimatedearlier,theCourtagreeswiththecourtsbelowthatSection6,Rule99
[22]
of
theRulesofCourtpermitstheventilationofthequestionregardingthecareandcustodyofthe
children as an incident to any proceeding, even a habeas corpus proceeding. Petitioner would
have us believe, however, that since respondents petition did not include a prayer
[23]
for
support of the children in accordance with the abovequoted Family Code provision, the trial
courtwasnotjustifiedinawardingsupportinrespondentsfavor.Inaddition,petitionerclaims
thathedidnotgiveconsenttothetrialandthethreshingoutoftheissueasitwasnotraisedin
thepleadings.
[24]
Heclaimsthatinfact,hetestifiedonhisfinancialstatusonlytoprovethat
he is financially able to provide for his children and not for the purpose of determining the
amountofsupport.
[25]
Besides,hecontendsthatthetrialcourtdidnotordertheamendmentof
the pleadings to conform to the evidence presentedpursuant to Section 5
[26]
Rule 10 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an aspect that supports his contention that the parties never
consented,expresslyorimpliedly,totrytheissueofsupport.
[27]

The Court is not convinced. Contrary to petitioners assertions, respondent testified

during trial, without any objection on petitioners part, regarding the need for support for the
childrenseducationandothernecessities,viz:

ADDLDIRECTEXAMINATIONOFTHEWITNESS
MERCEDESTANUYSY

Q:WiththekindpermissionofthisHonorableCourt.
Q:Ms.Sy,thecustodyofthetwominors[,]ofcourse[,]requiresomeexpensesonyour
partnotwithstandingthatyousaidyouhavesavingsintendedforthem,isitnot?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Andwhatisthenatureoftheseexpensesthatyouexpecttodisburseforthechildren?
A:Forthemedicineorhealthcare.

Q:Whatelse?
A:Foreducation,foremergencyexpenses,forbasicallyforfood.

Q:Inyourestimate,howmuchwouldtheseexpensesbepermonth?
A:Well,Ithink,perhapsP50,000.00,sir.

Q:Whichtherespondentshouldfurnish?
A:Yes,sir.

ATTY.CORTEZ

Thatisallforthewitness,YourHonor.
[28]

Moreover, based on the transcript of stenographic notes, petitioner was clearly made
awarethattheissueofsupportwasbeingdeliberatedupon,towit:

WITNESS:

WILSONSY:willbetestifyingunderthesameoath.
[29]
xxxx
ATTY.ALBON:
Q:InthehearingofJuly23,1994asappearingonpage3,MercedesSytestifiedthatshe
would be needing P50,000.00 a month expenses for her children, what can you say
aboutthat?

A:Thatisadillusion[sic]onherpart.
[30]

The trial court judge even propounded questions to petitioner regarding his sources of
incomeforthepurposeofdeterminingtheamountofsupporttobegiventothechildren:

COURT:

Iwanttofindouthowmuchhisincomenowforthepurposesofgivingsupporttothe
children.Pleaseanswerthequestion.

WITNESS:

A:Sharesofstocks.

ATTY.CORTEZ:

Q: A shares [sic] of stock is the evidence of your investment in the corporation. My

questionis:Whatinvestmentdidyouputintoenableyoutogetashare,wasitmoney
orproperty?
A:Thereisnomoneybutitwasgivenbymyfather.

COURT:

Q:Uponthedeathofyourfatheryoujustinheritedit?
A:Before.

Q:Afterthedeath,didyounotacquiresomeofthesharesofyourfather?
A:No,yourHonor.

Q:Whathappenedtothesharesofyourfather?
A:Itiswithmymother.

xxxx

COURT:

Nevermindtheshareofthemother.Whatismaterialishisshare.

ATTY.CORTEZ:

Q:Howmanysharesdoyouhaveinthecorporation?
A:RightnowIhaveonlyten(10)shares.

Q:Whatisthevalueofthat[sic]shares?
A:I[donot]giveanyimportance.

COURT

Q:Forpurposesofthiscase,theCourtisaskingyouhowmuchisyourshare?
A:I[donot]howtoappraise.

Q:Moreorless,howmuch?Usethewordmoreorless,isthatonemillionmoreorless,2
million,moreorless,10million,moreorless?Anyway,thisisnotaBIRproceeding,
thisisaCourtproceeding?
A:IwanttospeakthetruthbutI[donot]know.Ididnotevenseetheaccount.

COURT:

Proceed.

ATTY.CORTEZ

xxxx

Q:Atthattimeofyourfathersdeath[,]youwere[sic]alreadyholdingten(10)sharesor
wasitless?
A:More.

Q:Morethanten(10)shares?
A:Yes,sir.

COURT

Q:Whatistheparvalueofthatone(1)share?
A:I[donot]know,yourHonor.

xxxx

COURT:

Letitremainthatheownsten(10)shares.

ATTY.CORTEZ:

xxxx

A:Yes,10shares.TheothersharesIalreadysoldit.

Q:Howmanysharesdidyousell?
A: I only have 10 shares now. I dont know how many shares that I have left. I only
knowthe20shares.
[31]

ApplyingSection5,
[32]
Rule10ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,sincetheissueof
supportwastriedwiththeimpliedconsentoftheparties,itshouldbetreatedinallrespectsasif
ithadbeenraisedinthepleadings.Andsincetherewasimpliedconsent,evenifnomotionhad
been filed and no amendment had been ordered, the Court holds that the trial court validly
renderedajudgmentontheissue.
[33]
Significantly,inthecaseofBankofAmericav.American
RealtyCorporation,
[34]
theCourtstated:

TherehavebeeninstanceswheretheCourthasheldthatevenwithoutthenecessary
amendment,theamountprovedatthetrialmaybevalidlyawarded,asinTuazonv.Bolanos
(95Phil.106),wherewesaidthatifthefactsshownentitledplaintifftoreliefotherthanthat
asked for, no amendment to the complaint was necessary, especially where defendant had
himself raised the point on which recovery was based. The appellate court could treat the
pleading as amended to conform to the evidence although the pleadings were actually not
amended.Amendmentisalsounnecessarywhenonlyclericalerrorornonsubstantialmatters
are involved, as we held in Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Laguna (48 Phil. 5). In Co
Tiamco v. Diaz (75 Phil. 672), we stressed that the rule on amendment need not be applied
rigidly, particularly where no surprise or prejudice is caused the objecting party. And in the
recentcaseofNationalPowerCorporationv.CourtofAppeals(113SCRA556),weheldthat
where there is a variance in the defendants pleadings and the evidence adduced by it at the
trial,theCourtmaytreatthepleadingasamendedtoconformwiththeevidence.
[35]

TheCourtlikewiseaffirmstheawardofP50,000.00assupportfortheminorchildren.As
found by both courts, petitioners representations regarding his familys wealth and his
capabilitytoprovideforhisfamilymorethanprovidedafairindicationofhisfinancialstanding
eventhoughheprovedtobelessthanforthrightonthematter.
[36]
Inanyevent,thisawardof
supportismerelyprovisionalastheamountmaybemodifiedoralteredinaccordancewiththe
increasedordecreasedneedsoftheneedypartyandwiththemeansofthegiver.
[37]

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 29February 1996 of the Eleventh Division of the
Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 38936 and its Resolution
[38]
dated 15 April 1996 are
AFFIRMED.Costsagainstpetitioner.

SOORDERED.

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

ANTONIOT.CARPIOCONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
ChairpersonsAttestation,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecision
werereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionof
theCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.2752dated24May1996.

[2]
Id. at 720 penned by Associate Justice Minerva P. GonzagaReyes with the concurrence of Associate Justices
BuenaventuraJ.GuerreroandRomeoA.Brawner.

[3]
Id.at7072.

[4]
Id.at8.

[5]
Id.at910,31.

[6]
Id.at7dispositiveportionoftheDecisiondated14December1994pennedbyHon.DemetrioM.Batario,Jr.

[7]
Id.at8

[8]
Id.at1516.

[9]
Id.at1719.

[10]
Id.at2123inaResolutiondated15April1996.

[11]
Id.at37.

[12]
Id.at8890Commentdated7October1996.

[13]
FAMILYCODE,Art.63TOLENTINO,CIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Vol.1,p.609.

[14]
Id.at610.

[15]
UnsonIIIv.Navarro,No.52242,17November1980,101SCRA183,189.

[16]
STA.MARIA,JR.,PERSONSANDFAMILYRELATIONS,p.697,citingPeaveyv.Peavey,85Nev. 571, 460 P2d
110.

[17]
Id.at698,citingHorstv.Mclain,466Sw2d187.

[18]
Lacsonv.SanJoseLacson,133Phil.884,894895(1968).

[19]
Pelayov.LavinAedo,40Phil.501,504(1919).

[20]
103Phil.580(1958).

[21]
Id.at582583.

[22]
SEC. 6. Proceedings as to child whose parents are separated. Appeal. When husband and wife are divorced or living
separately and apart from each other, and the question as to the care, custody and control of a child or children of their marriage is
broughtbeforeaRegionalTrialCourtbypetitionorasanincidenttoanyotherproceeding,thecourt,uponhearingthetestimony
asmaybepertinent,shallawardthecare,custodyandcontrolofeachsuchchildaswillbeforitsbestinterest,permittingthechildto
choosewhichparentitpreferstolivewithifitbeovertenyearsofage,unlesstheparentsochosenbeunfittotakechargeofthechild
by reason of moral depravity, habitual drunkenness, incapacity, or poverty. If upon such hearing, it appears that both parents are
improperpersonstohavethecare,custody,andcontrolofthechild,thecourtmayeitherdesignatethepaternalormaternalgrandparent
of the child, or his oldest brother or sister, or some reputable and discreet person to take charge of such child, or commit it to any
suitableasylum,childrenshome,orbenevolentsociety.ThecourtmayinconformitywiththeprovisionsoftheCivilCodeordereither
orbothparentstosupportorhelpsupportsaidchild,irrespectiveofwhomaybeitscustodian,andmaymakeanyorderthatisjustand
reasonable permitting the parent who is deprived of its care and custody to visit the child or have temporary custody thereof. Either
parent may appeal from an order made in accordance with the provisions of this section. No child under seven years of age shall be
separatedfromitsmother,unlessthecourtfindstherearecompellingreasonstherefor.(Emphasissupplied)

[23]
Records,Vol.1,p.3.

WHEREFORE,itismostrespectfullyprayedthata[W]ritofHabeasCorpusbeissuedbythisHonorableCourt,commanding
WilsonL.SytoproducethebodiesofVanessaandJeremiahUySybeforethiscourtatthetimeandplacespecified,andtosummon
therespondentthenandtheretoappearandtoshowcausefortheirdetentionandthat,afterhearing,saidminorsbeturnedovertothe
careandcustodyoftheirmotherMercedesUySy.

[24]
CArollo,pp.1617.

[25]
Id.at19ofPetitionersMemorandum.

[26]
SEC.5.Amendmenttoconformtoorauthorizepresentationofevidence.Whenissuesnotraisedbythepleadingsare
triedwiththeexpressorimpliedconsentoftheparties,theyshallbetreatedinallrespects,asiftheyhadbeenraisedinthepleadings.
Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be
madeuponmotionofanypartyatanytime,evenafterjudgmentbutfailuretoamenddoesnotaffecttheresultofthetrialofthese
issues.Ifevidenceisobjectedtoatthetrialonthegroundthatitisnotwithintheissuesmadebythepleadings,thecourtmayallow
thepleadingstobeamendedandshalldosowithliberalityifthepresentationofthemeritsoftheactionandtheendsofsubstantial
justicewillbesubservedthereby.Thecourtmaygrantacontinuancetoenabletheamendmenttobemade.

[27]
Rollo,p.17.

[28]
Records,Vol.1TSN,dated25July1994,p.3.

[29]
Id.at547TSN,dated4November1994,p.6.

[30]
Id.at552TSN,4November1994,p.11.

[31]
Id.at563566,TSN,4November1994,pp.2225.

[32]
SEC.5.Amendmenttoconformtoorauthorizepresentationofevidence.Whenissuesnotraisedbythepleadingsare
triedwiththeexpressorimpliedconsentoftheparties,theyshallbetreatedinallrespectsasiftheyhadbeenraisedinthepleadings.
Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be
madeuponmotionofanypartyatanytime,evenafterjudgmentbutfailuretoamenddoesnotaffecttheresultofthetrialofthese
issues.Ifevidenceisobjectedtoatthetrialonthegroundthatitisnotwithintheissuesmadebythepleadings,thecourtmayallow
thepleadingstobeamendedandshalldosowithliberalityifthepresentationofthemeritsoftheactionandtheendsofsubstantial
justicewillbesubservedthereby.Thecourtmaygrantacontinuancetoenabletheamendmenttobemade.

[33]
HERRERA,REMEDIALLAW,Vol.1,p.598.

[34]
378Phil.1279(1999).

[35]
Id.at13011302.

[36]
Rollo,pp.1819.

[37]
Advinculav.Advincula,119Phil.448,451(1964).

[38]
Supranote3.
6 min to Spreed