Case Digest (G.R. No. 125303)
Facts:
In Elmar O. Perez v. Court of Appeals, Tristan A. Catindig and Lily Gomez-Catindig (G.R. No. 162580, January 27, 2006), private respondent Tristan A. Catindig married Lily Gomez-Catindig twice on May 16, 1968—first in a Protestant ceremony in Manila and then in a Catholic rite in Quezon City. Four children were born of that union. The couple later obtained a divorce in the Dominican Republic on June 12, 1984, and the Makati Regional Trial Court thereafter ordered the complete separation of properties. On July 14, 1984, Tristan purportedly married petitioner Elmar O. Perez in Virginia, USA, and they lived as husband and wife until October 2001, having one child. Upon learning that his Dominican decree of divorce was not recognized in the Philippines, Perez confronted Tristan, who promised to secure an annulment of his marriage to Lily and to adopt their son. On August 13, 2001, Tristan filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with the Quezon City RTC, Case No. Q-01Case Digest (G.R. No. 125303)
Facts:
- Marriage and Separation of Tristan A. Catindig and Lily Gomez-Catindig
- Married twice on May 16, 1968 (Central Methodist Church, Manila; Lourdes Catholic Church, QC); four children born.
- Experienced marital problems; executed Special Power of Attorney (April 27, 1984) for divorce in the Dominican Republic; divorce ratified June 12, 1984; RTC Makati ordered property separation June 23, 1984.
- Subsequent Union of Tristan with Elmar O. Perez
- Tristan married petitioner Perez on July 14, 1984 in Virginia, USA; they cohabited until October 2001 and had one child.
- Perez later learned the Dominican divorce was not recognized in the Philippines; Tristan promised to annul his first marriage and to adopt their son.
- Annulment Proceeding and Intervention
- Tristan filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage to Lily (Aug. 13, 2001, RTC Quezon City, Branch 84, Civil Case No. Q-01-44847).
- Perez moved to intervene (granted Sept. 30, 2002); Tristan sought certiorari and prohibition in the CA, which on July 25, 2003 set aside the intervention order and, on Jan. 23, 2004, denied reconsideration.
Issues:
- Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in admitting Perez’s complaint-in-intervention for lack of legal interest.
- Whether the Court of Appeals, in annulling the intervention order via Rule 65 certiorari, acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess/lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)