YU V.

JUDGE REYES-CARPIO AND YU

G.R. No. 189207, June 15, 2011

FACTS:

Eric Yu filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against Caroline T. Yu with the RTC of Pasig.
Judge Suarez on May 30, 2006 issued an order stating that Eric’s partial offer of evidence dated April
18, 2006 would be submitted for resolution after certain exhibits have been remarked. But the exhibits
were only relative to the issue of the nullity of the marriage of Eric and Caroline. On September 12,
2006, Caroline moved to submit the case for resolution, considering that the incidents on custody,
support, and property relations (incidental issues) were mere consequences of the declaration of nullity
of the parties’ marriage.

Eric opposed this motion saying that the incident on declaration of nullity cannot be resolved without
presentation of evidence for the incidents on custody, support, and property relations. Eric added that
the incidental issues and the issue on declaration of nullity can both proceed and be simultaneously
resolved. RTC ruled in favour of Eric’s opposition.

Caroline caused the inhibition of Judge Suarez, so that the case was re-raffled to another branch
presided by Judge Reyes-Carpio. While the case was being tried by Judge Reyes-Carpio, Caroline filed
an Omnibus Motion seeking the strict observation by the said judge of the Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriage as codified in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, and that the case on the
declaration on nullity be already submitted for resolution ahead of the incidental issues, and not
simultaneously. Eric opposed this motion.

Judge Reyes-Carpio granted the Omnibus Motion, saying that the main cause of action is the declaration
of nullity of the marriage and the incidental issues are merely ancillary incidents thereto. Eric moved for
reconsideration, which was denied by Judge Reyes-Carpio. Eric then filed for certiorari with the CA under
Rule 65. CA affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

ISSUES
Whether the main issue of nullity of marriage must be submitted for resolution first before the reception
of evidence on custody, support, and property relations (incidental issues) – YES.

RULING:
It must be noted that Judge Reyes-Carpio did not disallow the presentation of evidence on the
incidents on custody, support, and property relations. It is clear in the assailed orders that the trial court
judge merely deferred the reception of evidence relating to custody, support, and property relations.
And the trial judge’s decision was not without basis. Judge Reyes-Carpio 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. Particularly, Secs. 19 and 21 of the Rule clearly 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.
It is more proper to rule first on the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of each
party’s psychological incapacity to perform their respective marital obligations. If the Court eventually
finds that the parties’ respective petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage is indeed meritorious on
the basis of either or both of the parties’ psychological incapacity, then the parties shall proceed to
comply with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code before a final decree of absolute nullity of marriage
can be issued. 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.