You are on page 1of 1

KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

<Effects of annulment on the presumptive legitime/hereditary rights>


<Yu v Reyes-Carpio>
<Kyra Sy-Santos>
Pending such ruling on the declaration
nullity of
the parties
marriage,
the
<G.R. No.of
189207.>
<June
15, 2011>
<Velasco,
J.>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 theparties marriage.

RECIT-READY / SUMMARY

Petitioner claims that the declaration of nullity of marriage be resolved simultaneously with the custody,
support and property relations. However, the respondent claims that the custody, support and property
relations are merely incidents stemming from the main case of declaration of nullity and should
therefore be resolved after the declaration of nullity. The SC agrees with the decision of Judge ReyesCarpio favoring the respondents claim.

FACTS

1. On May 30, 2006, Judge Leili Cruz Suarez issued an Order, stating that petitioners Partial Offer of
Evidence dated April 18, 2006 would already be submitted for resolution after certain exhibits of
petitioner have been remarked.

2. Private respondent countered that the incidents on custody, support, and property relations were
mere consequences of the declaration of nullity of the parties marriage.
3. Petitioner, averred that the incident on nullity of marriage, and the incidents on custody, support, and
property relations, should both proceed and be simultaneously resolved.
4. The court issued an Order in favor of the petitioner
5. Subsequently, private respondent was able to successfully cause inhibition of Judge Suarez.
6. The case was re-raffled to another branch of the Pasig RTC presided by Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio
7. Private respondent filed an Omnibus Motion stating that the incident on the declaration of nullity of
marriage be already submitted for resolution.
8. Private respondent prayed that the incident on the declaration of nullity of marriage be resolved
ahead of the incidents on custody, support, and property relations, and not simultaneously.
9. petitioner opposed the Omnibus Motion and prayed that the incidents on nullity, custody, support, and
property relations of the spouses be resolved simultaneously
10. The court granted the Omnibus Motion.
11. Judge Reyes-Carpio explained that the parties are reminded that the main cause of action in
this case is the declaration of nullity of marriage of the parties and the issues relating to property
relations, custody and support are merely ancillary incidents thereto. If the Court eventually finds
that the parties respective petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage is indeed meritorious
then the parties shall proceed to comply with Article[s] 50 and 51 of the Family Code. 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.
12. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
13. Petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari with the CA and impleaded Judge Reyes-Carpio as
respondent alleged that the later committed grave abuse of discretion.
14. The CA affirmed the judgment of the trial court.