Yu vs. Yu

The filing of a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage automatically submits the issue of custody of the common children as an incident of that case; custody need not be repleaded after a related habeas corpus petition is dismissed, and where litis pendentia exists, the nullity case is the more appropriate action under Article 50 of the Family Code.

Eric Jonathan Yu and Caroline Tanchay-Yu are estranged spouses and the parents of minor Bianca. Custody of Bianca is contested in proceedings between them. The Family Code provisions on custody of common children in nullity and annulment proceedings supply the statutory backdrop.

Eric Jonathan Yu and Caroline Tanchay-Yu are estranged spouses and the parents of minor Bianca. On January 11, 2002, Eric filed a petition for habeas corpus before the CA alleging that Caroline unlawfully withheld from him the custody of Bianca; the petition included a prayer for sole custody and was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 68460. On March 3, 2002, Caroline filed a petition before the Pasig RTC for declaration of nullity of marriage and dissolution of the absolute community of property, including a prayer for sole custody of Bianca and for the fixing of Eric's visiting rights subject only to the final and executory judgment of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 68460. On March 21, 2002, the CA awarded Eric full custody of Bianca during the pendency of the habeas corpus case, with full visitation rights of Caroline. On April 5, 2002, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Approve Interim Visitation Agreement, which the CA approved on April 24, 2002. On April 18, 2002, Caroline filed a Motion for Modification of her visiting rights under the Interim Visitation Agreement; Eric opposed it and moved to cite Caroline for contempt in light of her filing of the Pasig nullity petition, which he contended constituted forum shopping. By Resolution of July 5, 2002, the CA ordered Caroline and her counsel to make the necessary amendment in her Pasig nullity petition as far as custody was concerned, under pain of contempt.

In compliance with the July 5, 2002 Resolution, Caroline filed a Motion to Admit Amended Petition before the Pasig RTC. She later filed in December 2002 a Motion to Dismiss her petition, without prejudice, on the ground that since she had started residing and conducting business at her new address in Pasay City, constraints on resources and her very busy schedule rendered her unable to devote the necessary time and attention to the petition. The Pasig RTC granted the motion and dismissed the petition without prejudice by Order of March 28, 2003. On June 12, 2003, Eric filed his own petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and dissolution of the absolute community of property before the Pasig RTC, docketed as JDRC Case No. 6190, with a prayer for sole custody of Bianca subject to the final resolution by the CA of his habeas corpus petition. The CA eventually dismissed the habeas corpus petition by Resolution of July 3, 2003 for having become moot and academic, "the restraint on the liberty of the person alleged to be in restraint [having been] lifted."

In the meantime, Caroline filed on July 24, 2003 before the Pasay RTC a petition for habeas corpus, which she denominated as "Amended Petition," praying for sole custody of Bianca or, in the alternative, pending the hearing, an order "replicating and reiterating the enforceability of the Interim Visiting Agreement" approved by the CA. The petition was docketed as SP Proc. No. 03-0048. Eric filed on July 25, 2003 before the Pasig RTC in his nullity petition an urgent motion praying for custody of Bianca for the duration of the case. Acting on Caroline's petition, Branch 113 of the Pasay RTC issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a Hold Departure Order, and Summons addressed to Eric. Eric moved to dismiss the petition on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action, forum shopping, and litis pendentia, citing the pending Pasig nullity petition.

The Pasay RTC issued an Order of August 12, 2003 declaring that pending the disposition of Caroline's petition, Bianca should stay with Eric from Sunday afternoon to Saturday morning and "with the company of her mother from Saturday 1:00 in the afternoon up to Sunday 1:00 in the afternoon." Eric moved for reconsideration, arguing that the Pasay RTC did not have jurisdiction to issue the order. He filed a Manifestation of August 14, 2003 stating that he was constrained to submit to the order but with the reservation that he was not submitting the issue of custody and himself to the Pasay RTC's jurisdiction. Caroline filed her Answer with Counter-Petition in the Pasig nullity case, praying for sole custody of Bianca subject to the final disposition of the Pasay RTC habeas corpus petition. By Omnibus Order of October 30, 2003, the Pasig RTC asserted jurisdiction over the custody aspect of Eric's nullity petition, directed the parties to comply with the Interim Visitation Agreement unless they agreed to a new bilateral agreement approved by the court, and granted custody of Bianca to Eric for the duration of the case. The Pasay RTC denied Eric's motion to dismiss by Order of November 27, 2003.

Eric assailed the Pasay RTC's denial via Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus before the CA. The CA denied the petition by Decision of August 10, 2004. Eric then filed the present petition.

• Jurisdiction of Pasay RTC: Petitioner argued that the Pasay RTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of custody and that his motion to dismiss should have been granted.
• Litis Pendentia: Petitioner argued that litis pendentia existed because of the pending Pasig RTC nullity case.
• Forum Shopping by Respondent: Petitioner argued that respondent committed deliberate and willful forum shopping by filing the Pasay RTC habeas corpus petition despite the pending Pasig nullity case.
• Visitation Order: Petitioner argued that the Pasay RTC acted whimsically, capriciously, and arbitrarily in issuing the August 12, 2003 Order granting respondent overnight visitation rights and in denying his urgent motion for reconsideration.
• CA Forum Shopping Ruling: Petitioner faulted the CA for declaring that he committed forum shopping in filing the Pasig nullity petition with a custody prayer and that the Pasig Family Court was barred from acquiring jurisdiction over custody.
• Law of the Case: Petitioner faulted the CA for applying the law of the case doctrine based on the July 5, 2002 Resolution, which he argued applied only to Caroline's earlier nullity case, JDRC Case No. 5745, and not to his June 12, 2003 petition, JDRC Case No. 6190.
• Judicial Stability and Non-Interference: Petitioner argued that the CA violated the doctrine of judicial stability and non-interference in declaring that the Pasig Family Court must yield to the Pasay Court on custody.
• Respondent's Submission to Pasig Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in ruling that Caroline did not submit to the Pasig Family Court based on an erroneous factual finding that she filed an August 25, 2003 Omnibus Opposition in his nullity action.

• Jurisdiction of Pasig RTC: Respondent argued that the Pasig RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the custody issue raised in the nullity case.
• Effect of Dismissal of Habeas Corpus: Respondent argued that the subsequent dismissal of the habeas corpus petition by the CA on July 3, 2003 could not have the effect of conferring jurisdiction over custody on the Pasig court.
• Need to Replead Custody: Respondent argued that for the Pasig court to acquire jurisdiction over custody after the dismissal of the CA habeas corpus petition, petitioner must furnish the occasion for acquisition of jurisdiction by repleading his cause of action for custody and invoking it anew, citing Caluag vs. Pecson.

• Custody Jurisdiction (Pasig vs. Pasay): Whether the question of custody over Bianca should be litigated before the Pasay RTC or before the Pasig RTC.
• Custody as Incident of Nullity Case: Whether the filing of a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage automatically submits the issue of custody of common children, such that petitioner need not replead custody after the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.
• Litis Pendentia: Whether litis pendentia exists between the Pasig RTC nullity case and the Pasay RTC habeas corpus case.
• More Appropriate Action: Whether the Pasig RTC nullity case is the more appropriate action to determine custody, such that the Pasay RTC case should be abated.
• Law of the Case: Whether the CA erroneously applied the law of the case doctrine based on its July 5, 2002 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 68460.

• Custody Jurisdiction (Pasig vs. Pasay): Pasig RTC. The custody issue is deemed pleaded in the Pasig nullity case, litis pendentia exists with the Pasay habeas corpus case, and the Pasig action is the more appropriate action; the Pasay RTC case is dismissed.
• Custody as Incident of Nullity Case: Yes. Under Articles 49 and 50 of the Family Code and Section 21 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, filing a nullity petition automatically submits custody as an incident; no new action or repleading is needed.
• Litis Pendentia: Yes. There is identity of parties, identity of rights and reliefs founded on the same facts, and the Pasig judgment would be res judicata in the Pasay case.
• More Appropriate Action: Yes. The Pasig nullity case is the more appropriate action under Article 50 of the Family Code, and choosing it avoids multiplicity of suits.
• Law of the Case: No. The CA erroneously applied the law of the case doctrine; the July 5, 2002 Resolution did not establish the law in the same case and did not bar the Pasig RTC from acquiring custody jurisdiction.

• Custody Jurisdiction (Pasig vs. Pasay): The SC held that the custody question should be litigated before the Pasig RTC. A judgment on custody in the Pasig nullity case, regardless of which party prevails, would be res judicata on the Pasay habeas corpus case because the Pasig RTC has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. The Pasay RTC case was therefore dismissed.
• Custody as Incident of Nullity Case: Articles 49 and 50 of the Family Code provide that the court in a nullity or annulment case shall provide for the custody and support of common children during the pendency of the action and in the final judgment. Section 21 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC directs the Family Court, upon entry of judgment, to proceed with custody and support on motion of either party. Since the provision directs the court to resolve custody by mere motion, the filing of a new action is not necessary. After the CA dismissed the habeas corpus petition, Eric did not need to replead his prayer for custody. The exception in Article 50 for matters already adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings was not present. Caluag vs. Pecson did not control because specific provisions of the Family Code govern custody in nullity cases.
• Litis Pendentia: The elements of litis pendentia are identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions; identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and identity in the two cases such that the judgment in the pending case would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other. There was identity in the causes of action in Pasig and Pasay because there was identity in the facts and evidence essential to the resolution of the identical issue in both actions—whether it would serve the best interest of Bianca to be in the custody of Eric rather than Caroline or vice versa. Since the ground in the Pasig nullity case was Caroline's alleged psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, the evidence to support that cause of action necessarily involved evidence of Caroline's fitness to take custody of Bianca. The elements of litis pendentia were present.
• More Appropriate Action: With litis pendentia established, the more appropriate action criterion guided the SC in deciding which of the two pending actions to abate. The Pasig nullity case was the more appropriate action to determine custody because of the express provision of the second paragraph of Article 50 of the Family Code. This was in line with the policy of avoiding multiplicity of suits. The Pasay RTC case was therefore dismissed.
• Law of the Case: Law of the case is the opinion delivered on a former appeal. When an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings, the question settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal. It means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. The CA erroneously applied the doctrine when it ruled that the July 5, 2002 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 68460 prevented the Pasig RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over the custody aspect of Eric's nullity petition. The factual circumstances did not justify applying the law of the case doctrine.

• Litis Pendentia — Litis pendentia requires identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions; identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and identity in the two cases such that the judgment in the pending case would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other. The SC applied it because the Pasig nullity case and the Pasay habeas corpus case both determined custody of Bianca, and a judgment in the Pasig case would be res judicata in the Pasay case.
• More Appropriate Action — When litis pendentia exists, the more appropriate action criterion guides the court in deciding which of the two pending actions to abate. The SC applied it by choosing the Pasig nullity case as the more appropriate action under Article 50 of the Family Code, in line with the policy of avoiding multiplicity of suits.
• Custody as Incident of Nullity Proceedings — The filing of a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage automatically submits the issue of custody of common children as an incident of that case. Under Articles 49 and 50 of the Family Code and Section 21 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the Family Court may resolve custody on motion of either party; a new action is not necessary. The SC applied it by holding that Eric did not need to replead custody after the CA dismissed his habeas corpus petition.
• Law of the Case — Law of the case is the opinion delivered on a former appeal; when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case for further proceedings, the question settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal, so long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case. The SC held it was erroneously applied because the July 5, 2002 Resolution did not settle the custody question in the same case.

• "By petitioner’s filing of the case for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Pasig RTC he automatically submitted the issue of the custody of Bianca as an incident thereof." — The SC holds that custody is deemed pleaded in the nullity case, so no repleading was needed after the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.
• "There is identity in the causes of action in Pasig and Pasay because there is identity in the facts and evidence essential to the resolution of the identical issue raised in both actions – whether it would serve the best interest of Bianca to be in the custody of petitioner rather than respondent or vice versa." — The SC explains why litis pendentia exists between the Pasig nullity case and the Pasay habeas corpus case.
• "The elements of litis pendentia having been established, the more appropriate action criterion guides this Court in deciding which of the two pending actions to abate." — The SC applies the more appropriate action criterion after finding litis pendentia.
• "The appellate court thus erroneously applied the law of the case doctrine when it ruled that in its July 5, 2002 Resolution that the pendency of the habeas corpus petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 68460 prevented the Pasig RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over the custody aspect of petitioner’s petition for declaration of nullity." — The SC rejects the CA's application of the law of the case doctrine.

• Caluag vs. Pecson, 82 Phil. 8 (1948) — Cited by respondent for the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter must be invoked by a proper pleading; the SC did not apply it because the Family Code and the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages specifically govern custody in nullity cases.
• Escareal vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 151922, April 7, 2005, 455 SCRA 119 — Cited for identity of causes of action and the elements of res judicata in the litis pendentia analysis.
• Vitrionics Computers, Inc. vs. RTC, Br. 63, Makati, G.R. No. 104019, 217 SCRA 517 — Cited for the elements of litis pendentia and the more appropriate action criterion.
• Pablo-Gualberto vs. Gualberto V, G.R. Nos. 154994 and 156254, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 450 — Cited in connection with Articles 49 and 50 of the Family Code on custody of common children in nullity and annulment cases.
• Calahat vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 75257-58, February 15, 1995, 241 SCRA 356 — Cited for the policy of avoiding multiplicity of suits.
• Serrano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77808, September 12, 1990, 189 SCRA 440 — Cited for the same policy of avoiding multiplicity of suits.
• Cucueco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139278, October 25, 2004, 441 SCRA 290 — Cited for the definition of the law of the case doctrine.

• Article 49, Family Code — During the pendency of an action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage, and in the absence of adequate provisions in a written agreement between the spouses, the court shall provide for the support of the spouses and the custody and support of their common children, and shall also provide for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent. The SC applied it to hold that custody is an incident of the nullity case.
• Article 50, Family Code — The final judgment in nullity or annulment 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 other matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. The SC applied it to hold that the Pasig nullity case was the more appropriate action and that the exception for prior adjudication was not present.
• Article 36, Family Code — The ground of psychological incapacity was invoked in the Pasig nullity petition. The SC used this to hold that the evidence to support the cause of action necessarily involved evidence of Caroline's fitness to take custody of Bianca, supporting the identity of causes of action for litis pendentia.
• Section 21, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — Upon entry of 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 and 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. The SC applied it to hold that a new action was not necessary for the court to consider custody.