G.R. No. 143376 - Choa vs. Choa

Petitioner Leni O. Choa and respondent Alfonso C. Choa were married on March 15, 1981.
The couple had two children, Cheryl Lynne and Albryan, during their marriage.

On October 27, 1993, respondent filed a Complaint for annulment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Branch 51 (Civil Case No. 93-8098).
Subsequently, an Amended Complaint was filed on November 8, 1993, seeking a declaration of nullity on the ground of petitioner’s alleged psychological incapacity.

The case went to trial with respondent presenting his evidence in chief, culminating in the submission of his Formal Offer of Exhibits on February 20, 1998.
Petitioner, instead of offering counter-evidence immediately, filed a Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer to Evidence) on May 11, 1998, challenging the sufficiency of respondent’s evidence.

The RTC issued its Order on December 2, 1998, denying petitioner’s Demurrer to Evidence, reasoning that respondent had presented a quantum of evidence which petitioner was required to controvert.
A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied on March 22, 1999.

Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) by filing a Petition for Certiorari (CA-GR No. 53100) challenging the December 2, 1998 RTC Order and the March 22, 1999 Resolution denying her relief.
The orders challenged were interlocutory in nature, particularly the denial of a demurrer to evidence which compelled respondent to present evidence in support of his claim despite the allegedly insufficient basis thereof.

Respondent’s evidence rested on multiple charges against petitioner, including complaints for perjury, false testimony, concubinage, and deportation, as proof of her supposed psychological incapacity.
The expert testimony of Dr. Antonio M. Gauzon, called upon by respondent, failed to establish that petitioner’s alleged psychological incapacity was grave, incurable, or present at the time of marriage.
The expert’s opinion was derived secondhand from descriptions provided by respondent and a review of transcripts rather than through a direct psychological examination of petitioner.

Whether a petition for certiorari is available to challenge an interlocutory order denying a demurrer to evidence when such order is tainted by a grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the petitioner should be compelled to present evidence per the Court of Appeals’ ruling even when the respondent’s evidence is grossly insufficient.

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by denying petitioner’s demurrer to evidence, thereby requiring petitioner to cross-examine and present counter-evidence against a case that was patently weak.
Whether the RTC’s ruling disregarded established standards and doctrinal pronouncements on psychological incapacity from prior Supreme Court decisions such as Molina and Santos.