YU V. JUDGE REYES-CARPIO AND YU
G.R. No. 189207, [June 15, 2011]
DOCTRINE:
It is more proper to rule first on the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of each party’s psychological incapacity to perform their respective marital obligations. If the Court eventually finds that the parties’ respective petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage is indeed meritorious on the basis of either or both of the parties’ psychological incapacity, then the parties shall proceed to comply with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code before a final decree of absolute nullity of marriage can be issued. Pending such ruling on the declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage, the Court finds no legal ground, at this stage, to proceed with the reception of evidence in regard the issues on custody and property relations, since these are mere incidents of the nullity of the parties’ marriage.
FACTS:
Eric Yu filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against Caroline T. Yu with the RTC of Pasig. Judge Suarez on May 30, 2006 issued an order stating that Eric’s partial offer of evidence dated April 18, 2006 would be submitted for resolution after certain exhibits have been remarked. But the exhibits were only relative to the issue of the nullity of the marriage of Eric and Caroline. On September 12, 2006, Caroline moved to submit the case for resolution, considering that the incidents on custody, support, and property relations (incidental issues) were mere consequences of the declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage.
Eric opposed this motion saying that the incident on declaration of nullity cannot be resolved without presentation of evidence for the incidents on custody, support, and property relations. Eric added that the incidental issues and the issue on declaration of nullity can both proceed and be simultaneously resolved. RTC ruled in favour of Eric’s opposition.
Caroline caused the inhibition of Judge Suarez, so that the case was re-raffled to another branch presided by Judge Reyes-Carpio. While the case was being tried by Judge Reyes-Carpio, Caroline filed an Omnibus Motion seeking the strict observation by the said judge of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriage as codified in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, and that the case on the declaration on nullity be already submitted for resolution ahead of the incidental issues, and not simultaneously. Eric opposed this motion.
Judge Reyes-Carpio granted the Omnibus Motion, saying that the main cause of action is the declaration of nullity of the marriage and the incidental issues are merely ancillary incidents thereto. Eric moved for reconsideration, which was denied by Judge Reyes-Carpio. Eric then filed for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65. CA affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
ISSUES/HELD:
Whether the main issue of nullity of marriage must be submitted for resolution first before the reception of evidence on custody, support, and property relations (incidental issues) – NO.
RATIO:
It appears in the records that the Orders in question, or what are alleged to have been exercised with grave abuse of discretion, are interlocutory orders. An interlocutory order is one which “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 as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court. Eric Yu to prove that the assailed orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion and that those were patently erroneous. Considering that the requisites that would justify certiorari as an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order have not been complied with, the proper recourse for petitioner should have been an appeal in due course of the judgment of the trial court on the merits, incorporating the grounds for assailing the interlocutory orders.
It must be noted that Judge Reyes-Carpio did not disallow the presentation of evidence on the incidents on custody, support, and property relations. It is clear in the assailed orders that the trial court judge merely deferred the reception of evidence relating to custody, support, and property relations. And the trial judge’s decision was not without basis. Judge Reyes-Carpio finds support in the Court En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. Particularly, Secs. 19 and 21 of the Rule clearly allow the reception of evidence on custody, support, and property relations after the trial court renders a decision granting the petition, or upon entry of judgment granting the petition:
Section 19. Decision. – (1) If the court renders a decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein that the decree of absolute nullity or decree of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties.
Section 21. Liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes. – Upon entry of the judgment granting the petition, or, in case of appeal, upon receipt of the entry of judgment of the appellate court granting the petition, the Family Court, on motion of either party, shall proceed with the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, including custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.
Evidently, Judge Reyes-Carpio did not deny the reception of evidence on custody, support, and property relations but merely deferred it, based on the existing rules issued by this Court, to a time when a decision granting the petition is already at hand and before a final decree is issued. Conversely, the trial court, or more particularly the family court, shall proceed with the liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, support of common children, and delivery of their presumptive legitimes upon entry of judgment granting the petition. And following the pertinent provisions of the Court En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, this act is undoubtedly consistent with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code, contrary to what petitioner asserts. Particularly, Arts. 50 and 51 of the Family Code state:
Article 50. The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in the previous judicial proceedings.
Article 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement judicially approved, had already provided for such matters.
Also, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC clearly allows the deferment of the reception of evidence on custody, support, and property relations. Conversely, the trial court may receive evidence on the subject incidents after a judgment granting the petition but before the decree of nullity or annulment of marriage is issued. And this is what Judge Reyes-Carpio sought to comply with in issuing the assailed orders. As correctly pointed out by the CA, Eric Yu’s assertion that ruling the main issue without receiving evidence on the subject incidents would result in an ambiguous and fragmentary judgment is certainly speculative and, hence, contravenes the legal presumption that a trial judge can fairly weigh and appraise the evidence submitted by the parties.
Therefore, it cannot be said at all that Judge Reyes-Carpio acted in a capricious and whimsical manner, much less in a way that is patently gross and erroneous, when she issued the assailed orders deferring the reception of evidence on custody, support, and property relations. To reiterate, this decision is left to the trial court’s wisdom and legal soundness. Consequently, therefore, the CA cannot likewise be said to have committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the Orders of Judge Reyes-Carpio and in ultimately finding an absence of grave abuse of discretion on her part.
