Case Digest (G.R. No. 189207)
Facts:
Eric U. Yu v. Honorable Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio, G.R. No. 189207, June 15, 2011, Supreme Court First Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Eric U. Yu filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against respondent Caroline T. Yu before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasig City; the case was initially raffled to RTC‑Branch 163 presided by Judge Leili Cruz Suarez. On May 30, 2006 Judge Cruz Suarez ordered that petitioner’s Partial Offer of Evidence dated April 18, 2006 be submitted for resolution after certain exhibits were remarked; those exhibits related only to the nullity issue.
On September 12, 2006 private respondent moved that the incident on the declaration of nullity be submitted for resolution because custody, support and property relations are mere incidents of nullity; petitioner opposed on September 28, 2006 insisting that evidence on custody, support and property relations must be presented and that all incidents be resolved simultaneously. On March 21, 2007 RTC‑Branch 163 issued an Order favoring petitioner’s position that the parties should first present evidence on property relations, custody and support to enable a comprehensive decision.
Judge Cruz Suarez was later inhibited at private respondent’s instance and the case was re‑raffled to RTC‑Branch 261, presided by Judge Agnes Reyes‑Carpio. While before Branch 261, private respondent filed an Omnibus Motion on May 21, 2008 invoking observance of the Court En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 02‑11‑10‑SC (the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages) and asking that the nullity incident be submitted for resolution ahead of ancillary incidents. Petitioner opposed, asserting the March 21, 2007 Order had already settled procedure.
In an Order dated August 4, 2008, RTC‑Branch 261 granted the Omnibus Motion and deferred reception of evidence on custody, support and property relations until after the court ruled on the petition for nullity, citing Section 19 of A.M. No. 02‑11‑10‑SC. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on August 28, 2008; on October 24, 2008 Judge Reyes‑Carpio denied it, explaining that the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity governs procedure and that Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code relating to liquidation and partition are procedural in nature and may be applied consistent with the Rule.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) on January 8, 2009, alleging grave abuse of discretion by Judge Reyes‑Carpio in issuing the assailed orders. On March 31, 2009 the CA (De Leon, J., penned) affirmed the trial court’s Orders and dis...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 a proper remedy to assail the RTC’s interlocutory orders deferring reception of evidence and the CA’s affirmance thereof?
- Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding Judge Reyes‑Carpio’s decision to submit the nullity issue for resolution ahead of receiving evidence on custody, support and property relations?
- Is the reception of evidence on custody, support and property relations necessary before the trial court may render a complete and comprehensive adjudicatio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)