G.R. No. 189207 ; June 15, 2011
ERIC U. YU, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE AGNES REYES-CARPIO, in her official capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Pasig-Branch 261; and CAROLINE T. YU, Respondents.

FACTS

This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul the March 31, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Orders dated August 4, 2008 and October 24, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 261 in Pasig City. The petition stemmed from a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by petitioner Eric U. Yu against private respondent Caroline T. Yu. The case was initially raffled to RTC Branch 163. On May 30, 2006, Judge Leili Cruz Suarez of Branch 163 issued an Order stating that petitioner’s Partial Offer of Evidence would be submitted for resolution after certain exhibits were remarked, but these exhibits pertained only to the issue of nullity. On September 12, 2006, private respondent moved to submit the incident on the declaration of nullity for resolution, considering that the incidents on custody, support, and property relations were mere consequences. Petitioner opposed, arguing that the nullity issue could not be resolved without evidence on the ancillary incidents and that they should be resolved simultaneously. On March 21, 2007, RTC Branch 163 issued an Order agreeing with petitioner, stating it would be more in accord with the rules to first allow presentation of evidence on property relations, custody, and support to enable a comprehensive decision. Subsequently, Judge Cruz Suarez inhibited, and the case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 261, presided by Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio. While the case was before Branch 261, private respondent filed an Omnibus Motion on May 21, 2008, seeking strict observance of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) and that the nullity incident be submitted for resolution ahead of the ancillary incidents. Petitioner opposed, arguing the issue had been resolved by the March 21, 2007 Order. In its Order dated August 4, 2008, RTC Branch 261 granted the Omnibus Motion, explaining that the main cause of action was the declaration of nullity, and the other issues were merely ancillary. It cited Section 19 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, finding it more prudent to rule first on the petition and counter-petition for nullity. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied in an Order dated October 24, 2008, where Judge Reyes-Carpio reasoned that the procedural aspect of reception of evidence was governed by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, and no substantive rights would be impaired. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, which affirmed the trial court’s orders on March 31, 2009.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that a petition for certiorari is not a proper remedy for the Petitioner.
2. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion 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.
3. Whether 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.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition without merit.
1. On the propriety of certiorari: A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail a judge’s act committed with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. However, for certiorari to lie, the abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner. The Court found that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The assailed orders were issued pursuant to the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC), which governs the procedure. The judge’s interpretation and application of the rule were not arbitrary or despotic.
2. On the sequence of resolving issues: The Court upheld the CA and the RTC. The main cause of action is the declaration of nullity of marriage. The issues of custody, support, and property relations are merely ancillary or incidental. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) provides the procedure, and Section 19 thereof implies that the declaration of nullity should be resolved first. The trial court acted prudently in deciding the nullity issue first, as a finding that the marriage is valid would render the ancillary issues moot. The procedure adopted does not impair any substantive right, as the provisions on liquidation of properties under Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code are procedural in nature.
3. On the necessity of evidence for comprehensive adjudication: The Court ruled that the reception of evidence on the ancillary issues is not a prerequisite for resolving the main action for nullity. The trial court can issue a decision on the nullity of the marriage independently. The ancillary matters can be resolved subsequently, if necessary, after a finding of nullity. The trial court’s approach promotes judicial economy and aligns with the procedural rule.
The petition was dismissed.