G.R. No. 80838 - Perez vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 80838)

Petitioner

Elmar O. Perez alleges a legal interest in the annulment proceedings between Tristan and Lily and sought leave of the trial court to file a complaint-in-intervention asserting facts and information material to the annulment case.

Respondents

Tristan and Lily Catindig are the original parties to the annulment action (Tristan being the petitioner for declaration of nullity). Tristan had earlier married Lily in 1968 and later purportedly obtained a divorce in the Dominican Republic in 1984; he subsequently married petitioner in Virginia on July 14, 1984.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

May 16/18, 1968: Tristan and Lily married (two ceremonies in Manila and Quezon City).
April–June 1984: Tristan and Lily executed a power of attorney and obtained a Dominican Republic divorce (April 27, 1984; ratified June 12, 1984); Makati RTC ordered complete separation of properties (June 23, 1984).
July 14, 1984: Tristan married petitioner in Virginia.
August 13, 2001: Tristan filed petition for declaration of nullity in Quezon City RTC (Civil Case No. Q-01-44847).
September 30, 2002: Quezon City RTC granted petitioner’s motion for leave to intervene and admitted complaint-in-intervention.
Court of Appeals (July 25, 2003) set aside the RTC order admitting the intervention; its denial of reconsideration (Jan. 23, 2004) led to this Rule 65 petition, resolved under existing rules and jurisprudence.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Because the decision postdates 1990, the 1987 Constitution is the governing constitutional framework for judicial review and exercise of judicial power. The specific procedural and substantive rules applied are the Rules of Court (Rule 65 for certiorari and Rule 19, Sec. 1 on intervention), the Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386, including Article 15), and controlling jurisprudence cited by the Court (e.g., Tenchavez v. Escano). The Court examined whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion within this legal framework.

Procedural Posture and Proper Remedy

The petition invokes Rule 65 certiorari and prohibition, asserting that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the RTC’s order. The Court reiterates the principle that while appeals from Court of Appeals decisions ordinarily lie via Rule 45, Rule 65 is proper where the challenged act or decision involves jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and where no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.

Standard and Meaning of Grave Abuse of Discretion

Grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. It must be a patent, gross evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The Court emphasized that certiorari relief requires a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness.

Intervention: Statutory Criteria (Rule 19, Sec. 1)

Rule 19, Section 1 permits intervention, with leave of court, by a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either party, or who would be adversely affected by a disposition of property in the court’s custody; the court must consider whether intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication and whether the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.

Requirements for Intervention and Nature of Legal Interest

The Court articulated the two essential requisites for intervention: (1) a legal interest in the matter in litigation; and (2) judicial consideration of potential delay/prejudice or whether the intervenor’s rights may be protected separately. Legal interest must be actual, direct, and material — not contingent or expectant — such that the intervenor will gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.

Application of Law to Facts: Marital Status and Legal Interest

Petitioner asserted legal interest based on her status as Tristan’s wife and companion for 17 years. The Court held that this assertion lacked legal foundation because petitioner’s marriage to Tristan, contracted on July 14, 1984, was void under Philippine law. The Dominican Republic divorce obtained b

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 80838)

Title, Report and Citation

Supreme Court Decision reported at 516 Phil. 204, First Division, G.R. No. 162580, dated January 27, 2006.
Case caption: Elmar O. Perez, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, Fifth Division, Tristan A. Catindig and Lily Gomez-Catindig, respondents.
Opinion penned by Justice Ynares‑Santiago. Justices Austria‑Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico‑Nazario concur. Chief Justice Panganiban (Chairman) concurs in the result.
The petition assails the Court of Appeals’ July 25, 2003 Decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 74456 and its January 23, 2004 Resolution denying reconsideration.

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Elmar O. Perez.
Relief sought: annulment of the Court of Appeals’ decision that set aside and declared null and void the September 30, 2002 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 84, which granted petitioner leave to file intervention and admitted the Complaint‑in‑Intervention in Civil Case No. Q‑01‑44847.
Background appellate actions: the RTC granted petitioner’s motion for leave to intervene and admitted the Complaint‑in‑Intervention (order dated September 30, 2002); the Court of Appeals annulled that RTC order by Decision dated July 25, 2003; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied by Resolution dated January 23, 2004; petitioner brought the present Rule 65 petition to the Supreme Court.

Material Facts

Private respondents Tristan A. Catindig and Lily Gomez Catindig were married twice on May 16, 1968: first at Central Methodist Church (T.M. Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila) and second at Lourdes Catholic Church (La Loma, Quezon City).
The marriage produced four children.
Years later, Tristan and Lily decided to separate and, upon advice of a mutual friend, sought a divorce in the Dominican Republic.
On April 27, 1984 Tristan and Lily executed a Special Power of Attorney addressed to the Judge of the First Civil Court of San Cristobal, Dominican Republic, appointing an attorney‑in‑fact to institute a divorce action.
On April 30, 1984 the private respondents filed a joint petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership with the RTC of Makati.
On June 12, 1984, the civil court in the Dominican Republic ratified the divorce by mutual consent of Tristan and Lily.
On June 23, 1984, the RTC of Makati, Branch 133, ordered complete separation of properties between Tristan and Lily.
On July 14, 1984, Tristan married petitioner Elmar O. Perez in the State of Virginia, United States, and they lived as husband and wife until October 2001. Their union produced one offspring.
During cohabitation, petitioner learned that the Dominican Republic divorce decree was not recognized in the Philippines and that her marriage to Tristan was deemed void under Philippine law.
Tristan allegedly assured petitioner he would legalize their union after obtaining an annulment of his marriage to Lily and promised to adopt their son so he would share equally in Tristan’s estate.
On August 13, 2001 Tristan filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lily with the RTC of Quezon City, docketed as Case No. Q‑01‑44847.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Intervention and a Complaint‑in‑Intervention; the RTC granted leave and admitted the Complaint‑in‑Intervention on September 30, 2002.

Trial Court and Court of Appeals Actions

Trial court (RTC Quezon City, Branch 84): granted petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Intervention and ordered the admission of the Complaint‑in‑Intervention in Civil Case No. Q‑01‑44847 (Order dated September 30, 2002; penned by Judge Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo).
Tristan petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari and prohibition seeking annulment of the RTC’s September 30, 2002 Order.
Court of Appeals, Fifth Division: issued Decision dated July 25, 2003 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 74456, setting aside and declaring null and void the RTC’s September 30, 2002 Order that had allowed petitioner to intervene and admitted the Complaint‑in‑Intervention. The CA Decision was penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Regalado E. Maambong.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied by Resolution dated January 23, 2004.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in annulling the RTC’s order granting petitioner leave to intervene and admitting the Complaint‑in‑Intervention.
Whether petitioner possessed the requisite legal interest to intervene in Tristan’s petition for declaration of nullity of marriage to Lily.
Whether Rule 65 is the proper remedy in the circumstances, considering alternative remedies (e.g., Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari).

Legal Standards and Authorities Cited

Rule 65, Rules of Court: certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies when the error is one of jurisdiction or when a court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Delgado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137881, December 21, 2004, 447 SCRA 402, 411: cited on remedy under Rule 65 when grave abuse of discretion is alleged.
Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. v. Cou