Title
Yu vs. Reyes-Carpio
Case
G.R. No. 189207
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2011
Petitioner sought nullity of marriage; RTC deferred ancillary issues (custody, support, property) pending nullity ruling, upheld by SC as consistent with procedural rules.
nullity of marriage
custody
support

Case Summary (G.R. No. 189207)

Factual Background

Petitioner filed in the RTC in Pasig City a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against private respondent. The case was initially raffled to RTC Branch 163, presided by Judge Leili Cruz Suarez.

On May 30, 2006, Judge Suarez issued an order stating that petitioner’s Partial Offer of Evidence dated April 18, 2006 would be submitted for resolution after certain exhibits were remarked. The remarks, however, related only to the issues bearing on the nullity of marriage of the parties. Private respondent thereafter moved, on September 12, 2006, that the incident on declaration of nullity of marriage be submitted for resolution because the incidents on custody, support, and property relations were mere consequences of a declaration of nullity.

Petitioner opposed on September 28, 2006, contending that the incident on nullity could not be resolved without presenting evidence for the incidents on custody, support, and property relations. Petitioner therefore requested that the incidents for nullity on one hand, and custody, support, and property relations on the other, proceed and be resolved simultaneously.

On March 21, 2007, RTC Branch 163 granted petitioner’s opposition and ruled that it would be more in accord with the rules to allow parties to present evidence on property relations, custody, and support so that the court could issue a comprehensive decision. Private respondent then successfully moved for the inhibition of Judge Suarez, prompting the re-raffling of the case to RTC Branch 261 under Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio.

Proceedings in the RTC Branch 261

While the case was being tried in RTC Branch 261, private respondent filed an Omnibus Motion on May 21, 2008. The motion sought strict observance by the RTC Branch 261 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, and asked that the incident on declaration of nullity be submitted for resolution. Private respondent specifically prayed that the incident on nullity be resolved ahead of custody, support, and property relations, and not simultaneously.

Petitioner opposed, arguing that the procedure had already been resolved by the earlier March 21, 2007 order. Petitioner likewise prayed that the incidents on nullity, custody, support, and property relations be resolved simultaneously.

In an Order dated August 4, 2008, Judge Reyes-Carpio granted the Omnibus Motion. The trial court treated the declaration of nullity of marriage as the main cause of action and regarded the issues on property relations, custody, and support as ancillary incidents. Citing Section 19 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the trial court ruled as more prudent that it first resolve the parties’ petitions and counter-petitions on the ground of each other’s psychological incapacity. The court held that if the petitions proved meritorious and nullity were to be declared, the parties would then comply with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code before any final decree of absolute nullity could be issued. Pending resolution of the nullity petitions, the court found no legal ground to proceed with receiving evidence on custody and property relations because these were merely incidents of nullity.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration on August 28, 2008. On October 24, 2008, Judge Reyes-Carpio denied the motion. The trial judge reasoned that petitioner sought reconsideration of a procedural aspect, namely the reception of evidence. The judge explained that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC should be followed rather than the procedures described in Articles 50 and 51 because the latter provisions are procedural in nature, particularly as to liquidation and dissolution of properties, and do not impair substantive or vested rights. The trial judge also invoked the court’s policy to harmonize procedural and substantive rules to achieve just and speedy resolution. The court reiterated that it was more prudent to decide the nullity petitions first, and only upon a finding of merit would the parties proceed to comply with Articles 50 and 51 before the final decree could issue. The trial judge further noted that Section 17 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC allowed reception of evidence through a commissioner on property-related matters.

Appellate Review in the Court of Appeals

On January 8, 2009, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, assailing both RTC orders. The petition impleaded Judge Reyes-Carpio and alleged that she committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders.

On March 31, 2009, the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC. It held, in substance, that there was no showing of arbitrary or despotic exercise of judicial power that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. The CA’s dispositive portion dismissed the petition.

Issues Raised on Appeal

In the Supreme Court, petitioner maintained that the CA erred in affirming the RTC orders. The issues petitioner framed were whether: first, certiorari under Rule 65 was an improper remedy; second, the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the trial judge’s procedure of submitting the nullity issue ahead of evidence on custody, support, and property relations; and third, whether the reception of evidence on custody, support, and property relations was necessary for a complete and comprehensive adjudication.

The Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner argued that the CA should have found grave abuse of discretion because the RTC procedure deferred evidence on custody, support, and property relations, which petitioner believed was required for a comprehensive resolution of the parties’ claims and defenses. Petitioner also challenged the CA’s treatment of the remedy under Rule 65, asserting that certiorari was the proper mode to correct the alleged judicial error.

The respondents, through the CA rulings and the RTC’s approach, defended the trial court’s procedural course. The RTC treated the nullity question as the principal issue and relied on A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC to justify ruling first on psychological incapacity, with liquidation, partition, custody, and support matters to be addressed in the manner contemplated by the Rule and the Family Code after entry of judgment.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit. It began by clarifying that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper to assail acts of a tribunal exercising judicial functions when such acts are made without or in excess of jurisdiction, or when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and when no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists.

The Court emphasized that grave abuse of discretion has a specific meaning. It exists only when the act is a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of a positive duty, a refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or an arbitrary and despotic exercise of power due to passion or hostility. The Court stressed that certiorari is restricted to truly extraordinary cases where the act is wholly void.

Applying these standards, the Court found that petitioner had not shown, in the petition, that the challenged acts were patent and gross, such that grave abuse of discretion could be inferred. The Court noted that the assailed RTC orders and CA affirmation were at least interlocutory in nature. An interlocutory order does not finally dispose of the case and does not end the court’s task of adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining their rights and liabilities. For certiorari to lie against an interlocutory order, the Court required concurrence of two requisites: the order must have been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and it must be patently erroneous such that appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.

The Supreme Court held that petitioner failed to demonstrate both grave abuse of discretion and patently erroneous error of jurisdiction. It further ruled that, because those requisites were not satisfied, the proper recourse would have been an appeal in due course from the judgment on the merits, incorporating the grounds assailing the interlocutory rulings.

The Court also invoked jurisprudence—specifically referencing Triplex Enterprises, Inc. v. PNB-Republic Bank and Solid Builders, Inc.—which underscored that certiorari does not lie to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling. It reiterated the doctrine that certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors in judgment, and that procedural rulings and rulings on admissibility of evidence are generally interlocutory matters subject to review in a proper appeal.

Even assuming arguendo that it would consider the merits, the Court found no abuse on the part of Judge Reyes-Carpio. The Supreme Court clarified that the judge did not outright disallow evidence on custody, support, and property relations. Rather, the orders deferred the reception of such evidence, based on the court’s assessment that custody and property issues were ancillary to the determination of nullity on psychological incapacity.

Doctrinal Application to the Nullity Procedure

The Supreme Court found that Judge Reyes-Carpio’s course of action had support in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and in the Court En Banc resolution embodied therein. It pointed out that Sections 19 and 21 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC allow liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, support, and related incidents to be addressed after a decision granting the peti

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms