Yu vs. Reyes-Carpio G.R. No.

189207 June 15, 2011

TOPIC: PRESUMPTIVE LEGITIMES/HEREDITARY RIGHTS

Eric U. Yu, petitioner, vs. Hon. Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio, in her official capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC Pasig-Branch 261, and Caroline T. Yu,
respondents

Ponente: Velasco, Jr., J.

Legal Action: Petition for review on certiorari

Facts:

Petitioner Eric U. Yu filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Caroline T. Yu with the RTC Pasig-Branch 163. He made a Partial
Offer of Evidence on April 18, 2006 which was only relative to the issue of the nullity of marriage.

On September 12, 2006, private respondent moved to submit the incident of the nullity of their marriage for the resolution of the court,
considering that the incidents on custody, support and property relations were mere consequences of the declaration of nullity of the parties
marriage.

On September 28, 2006, petitioner opposed the private respondents motion claiming that the incident on the declaration of nullity of marriage
cannot be resolved without the presentation of evidence for the incidents of custody, support and property relations.

On March 21, 2007, RTC-Brach 163 issued an order for both parties to present evidence for the incidents of custody, support and property relations
to enable the Court to issue a comprehensive decision.

Subsequently, private respondent was able to cause the inhibition of Judge Cruz Suarez of the RTC-Branch 163 and the case was re-raffled to Pasig
RTC-Branch 261 under Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio who issued an order that the action for the declaration of nullity of marriage be resolved before
the reception of evidence on incidents of custody, support and property relations.

CA affirmed the decision of the RTC which prompted the petitioner to raise this case.

ISSUES HELD RATIO
1. W/N the CA committed a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction in holding that a petition for
certiorari is not a proper remedy for the
petitioner
1. NO 1. The orders in question are interlocutory orders. Rule 65 is appropriate
to strike down interlocutory orders only when: a) the tribunal issued such
order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion;
and b) the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the
remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.

The petitioner was not able to show that such was the case.
2. W/N the CA committed a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction in upholding the Respondent
Judge in submitting the main issue of
nullity of marriage for resolution ahead of
the reception of evidence on custody,
support, and property relations
2. NO 2. The orders issued by the Respondent Judge merely deferred the
reception of evidence relating to custody, support, and property relations
and was not without basis. It 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 Secs. 19
and 21 which 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 for declaration
of nullity.
3. W/N the reception of evidence on
custody, support and property relations is
necessary for a complete and
comprehensive adjudication of the
parties respective claims and defenses
3. NO 3. The Court En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC allows the
deferment of the reception of evidence on custody, support, and property
relations to after a judgment granting the petition is made but before the
decree of nullity or annulment of marriage is issued.

DECISION: Petition DISMISSED

Definition of Terms:

Interlocutory order one which does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Courts 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.