Yu vs. Reyes-Carpio

Certiorari will not lie to assail an interlocutory order deferring the reception of evidence on ancillary matters in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, as such deferment is sanctioned by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and does not amount to grave abuse of discretion.

Eric U. Yu filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against Caroline T. Yu with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. The case was initially raffled to Branch 163, where the presiding judge ordered that evidence on the nullity of marriage and the ancillary incidents of custody, support, and property relations be presented simultaneously. Following the inhibition of the Branch 163 judge, the case was re-raffled to Branch 261. Private respondent Caroline T. Yu then filed an Omnibus Motion seeking the strict observance of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and the submission of the nullity issue for resolution ahead of the reception of evidence on the ancillary matters. The presiding judge of Branch 261 granted the motion, deferring the presentation of evidence on the ancillary issues until after a decision on the nullity of marriage was rendered.

• Nature of the Action: Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Court of Appeals' decision and the RTC's interlocutory orders that deferred the reception of evidence on ancillary matters in a nullity of marriage case.
• Initial RTC Proceedings: Petitioner Eric U. Yu filed for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to private respondent Caroline T. Yu. Private respondent moved to submit the nullity incident for resolution first, arguing that custody, support, and property relations were mere consequences of the nullity. Petitioner opposed, contending that all incidents should be resolved simultaneously. RTC-Branch 163 sided with petitioner, ordering that evidence on all incidents be presented to enable a comprehensive decision.
• Re-Raffling and Assailed Orders: The presiding judge of Branch 163 inhibited, and the case was re-raffled to Branch 261, presided by Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio. Private respondent filed an Omnibus Motion seeking the strict observance of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and the submission of the nullity issue for resolution ahead of the ancillary matters. Petitioner opposed, invoking the previous order of Branch 163. Judge Reyes-Carpio granted the motion in the August 4, 2008 Order, ruling that it was more prudent to resolve the nullity issue first, as mandated by Section 19 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, and deferring the reception of evidence on ancillary matters. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in the October 24, 2008 Order, the trial judge holding that the procedure in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC should be followed and that no substantive or vested rights were impaired by the deferment.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy.
• Sequence of Trial: Petitioner argued that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in submitting the main issue of nullity of marriage for resolution ahead of the reception of evidence on custody, support, and property relations.
• Fragmentary Judgment: Petitioner averred that the reception of evidence on ancillary matters is necessary for a complete and comprehensive adjudication of the parties' respective claims and defenses, and that deferring such evidence would result in an ambiguous and fragmentary judgment on the main issue.

• Compliance with A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC: Respondent countered that the trial court's deferment of the reception of evidence on ancillary matters was in strict observance of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, which mandates that the nullity issue be resolved first.
• Procedural vs. Substantive Law: Respondent argued that the procedures laid down in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which implement Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code, are procedural in nature and do not impair any vested or substantive rights.
• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondent maintained that the trial court merely deferred, and did not deny, the reception of evidence on ancillary matters, and that such action was a valid exercise of judicial discretion in accordance with existing rules, negating any claim of grave abuse.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the interlocutory orders of the trial court.
• Deferment of Evidence: Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in deferring the reception of evidence on custody, support, and property relations until after the resolution of the nullity issue.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Certiorari was dismissed as an improper remedy. The assailed RTC orders are interlocutory in nature, as they do not finally dispose of the case but merely defer the reception of evidence on certain incidents. Certiorari will not lie to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling; it is restricted to truly extraordinary cases where the act of the lower court is wholly void or issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Absent a clear showing that the interlocutory orders were patently erroneous and that appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the proper recourse is an appeal in due course from the judgment on the merits.
• Deferment of Evidence: No grave abuse of discretion was committed by the trial court. The trial court merely deferred, and did not deny, the reception of evidence on ancillary matters. This deferment is explicitly sanctioned by Sections 19 and 21 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which allow the reception of evidence on custody, support, and property relations after the trial court renders a decision granting the petition but before the final decree of nullity is issued. The trial court's sequencing is consistent with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code. Petitioner's assertion that a fragmentary judgment would result is speculative and contravenes the legal presumption that a trial judge can fairly weigh and appraise the evidence submitted.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Defined as a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or an evasion of positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or an arbitrary and despotic exercise of power by reason of passion or hostility. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty. Applied to hold that the trial court's compliance with A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC in deferring the reception of evidence was a valid exercise of discretion, not a capricious or whimsical act.
• Certiorari against Interlocutory Orders — Certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail every controversial interlocutory ruling. It lies only when the following requisites concur: (1) the tribunal issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and (2) the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. Applied to hold that petitioner failed to prove the RTC orders were patently erroneous or issued with grave abuse of discretion, making appeal the proper remedy.

• "The writ of certiorari is restricted to truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void. Moreover, it is designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors in judgment."
• "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."

• Triplex Enterprises, Inc. v. PNB-Republic Bank and Solid Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 151007, July 17, 2006 — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that certiorari does not lie to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling and is restricted to correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors in judgment.
• J.L. Bernardo Construction v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105827, January 31, 2000 — Followed. Cited for the requisites for certiorari to lie against an interlocutory order: the order must be issued without/excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and it must be patently erroneous with appeal not affording adequate and expeditious relief.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Defines the remedy of certiorari as available when a tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Applied to determine the propriety of the petition.
• Sections 19 and 21, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) — Section 19 provides that the decree of nullity shall be issued only after compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code. Section 21 provides that upon entry of judgment granting the petition, the family court shall proceed with the liquidation, partition, custody, support, and delivery of presumptive legitimes. Applied to justify the trial court's deferment of the reception of evidence on ancillary matters until after the nullity issue is resolved.
• Articles 50 and 51, Family Code — Article 50 provides that the final judgment shall provide for the liquidation, partition, distribution of properties, custody, support, and delivery of presumptive legitimes. Article 51 provides that the value of presumptive legitimes shall be computed as of the date of the final judgment. Applied to show that the procedural sequence in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is consistent with the substantive requirements of the Family Code.

Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez