I.P.I. No. 15-227-CA-J - Re: Dolora Cadiz Khanna

Maria Claudia Belinda Candano-Lim (Belinda) and David Lim (David) married on June 27, 1971.
No marriage settlement or property agreement was executed between them.
They had two children who are now living in the United States.

On November 24, 2015, David filed a Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, alleging psychological incapacity of Belinda under Article 36 of the Family Code.
David initially estimated the conjugal assets at PHP 15,350,000.00, consisting of condominium units.
Belinda filed an Answer with Counter-Petition, moving to dismiss David's petition due to under-declaration of assets, claiming the conjugal properties were worth about PHP 186,830,000.00.
David filed a Reply and Supplemental Reply explaining he was unaware of all conjugal properties, estimating their value at PHP 100,000,000.00, and sought leave of court to pay additional docket fees.

RTC permitted David to amend the petition on April 21, 2016, and he filed the First Amended Petition on May 11, 2016, estimating conjugal assets at PHP 173,350,000.00.
Otto the hearing on September 14, 2016, the RTC noted both parties’ position that properties not incorporated in the First Amended Petition and in Belinda's name are considered paraphernal.
The court ordered David to restore support payments to Belinda pending trial.
RTC deferred consideration of sale of property, denying David’s prayer to consent to sale, holding properties status quo.

David filed a Second Amended Petition following the RTC's order to underline amendments.
Belinda moved for special order to sell Unit 15-A of Foggy Heights, Tagaytay City, asserting it was paraphernal property and for her to have sale authority.
RTC granted Belinda’s motion based on David's previous admission that properties not incorporated in the First Amended Petition are paraphernal.
David moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied, stating David must immediately amend petition if additional conjugal properties exist or be barred.

During the hearing on cancellation of lis pendens on Foggy Heights property, the RTC allowed David to further amend the petition despite opposition from Belinda.
Belinda moved to partially reconsider, arguing the amendment should require motion for leave of court as per rules.
RTC denied reconsideration, citing no vested right in procedural rules and allowing amendment to avoid multiplicity of suits and for justice.
David filed the Third Amended Petition on December 17, 2018, estimating conjugal assets at PHP 284,311,155.00, with a reservation that his property list is not conclusive.

Belinda sought to sell additional units in Foggy Heights, again asserting their paraphernal status and need to prevent deterioration.
RTC denied Belinda's Second Motion for Special Order on October 24, 2018, holding that David should have his day in court to argue nature of the properties.
Denial of reconsideration was upheld November 27, 2018.

Belinda filed Rule 65 Petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify RTC orders allowing amendment and denying authorization to sell properties.
CA denied the Petition, ruling no grave abuse of discretion by RTC in allowing filing of third amended petition and denying Belinda’s motion.
CA emphasized the discretion of courts to allow pleadings amendments to avoid multiplicity of suits and serve justice.
CA noted legal presumption of conjugal ownership for properties acquired during marriage.

Belinda argued RTC and CA erred in allowing third amendment without written motion and notice as required by Rule 10, Section 3, and causing unjustified delay.
She also asserted that David had judicially admitted the paraphernal status of certain properties and the RTC’s denial of her motion constituted grave abuse.
David defended the amendment as necessary due to lack of complete knowledge of conjugal properties, asserting Belinda controlled documents.
The Republic, through the OSG, supported the RTC and CA rulings, highlighting liberal construction of procedural rules and presumption of conjugal property.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing David Lim to file a third amended petition for declaration of nullity of marriage without a prior written motion for leave of court.

Whether the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in denying Belinda’s Second Motion for Special Order authorizing sale of certain properties presumed paraphernal by judicial admission.