l awphil

Today is Monday, June 18, 2012

Search
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FRST !"S#$
G.R. No. 162580 January 27, 2006
ELMAR O. PEREZ, Petitioner,
%s&
COURT O APPEALS, !"#$ %!&!'!on, TR(STAN A. CAT(N%(G an) L(L* GOMEZ+CAT(N%(G, Respondents&
! ' ( S # $
*NARES+SANT(AGO, J.:
This petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule )* of the Rules of (ourt assails the July 2*, 200+ !ecision
1
of the (ourt of
,ppeals in (,-.&R& SP $o& /00*) which set aside and declared as null and %oid the Septe1ber +0, 2002 #rder
2
of the Re2ional
Trial (ourt of 3ue4on (ity, 5ranch 80, 2rantin2 petitioner6s 1otion for lea%e to file inter%ention and ad1ittin2 the (o1plaint-in-
nter%ention
+
in (i%il (ase $o& 3-01-0080/7 and its January 2+, 2000 Resolution
0
denyin2 the 1otion for reconsideration&
Pri%ate respondent Tristan ,& (atindi2 1arried 8ily .o1e4 (atindi2
*
twice on May 1), 19)8& The first 1arria2e cere1ony was
celebrated at the (entral Methodist (hurch at T&M& :alaw Street, 'r1ita, Manila while the second too; place at the 8ourdes
(atholic (hurch in 8a 8o1a, 3ue4on (ity& The 1arria2e produced four children&
Se%eral years later, the couple encountered 1arital proble1s that they decided to separate fro1 each other& <pon ad%ice of a
1utual friend, they decided to obtain a di%orce fro1 the !o1inican Republic& Thus, on ,pril 2/, 1980, Tristan and 8ily e=ecuted a
Special Power of ,ttorney addressed to the Jud2e of the First (i%il (ourt of San (ristobal, !o1inican Republic, appointin2 an
attorney-in-fact to institute a di%orce action under its laws&
)
Thereafter, on ,pril +0, 1980, the pri%ate respondents filed a >oint petition for dissolution of con>u2al partnership with the Re2ional
Trial (ourt of Ma;ati& #n June 12, 1980, the ci%il court in the !o1inican Republic ratified the di%orce by 1utual consent of Tristan
and 8ily& Subse?uently, on June 2+, 1980, the Re2ional Trial (ourt of Ma;ati (ity, 5ranch 1++, ordered the co1plete separation
of properties between Tristan and 8ily&
#n July 10, 1980, Tristan 1arried petitioner 'l1ar #& Pere4 in the State of "ir2inia in the <nited States
/
and both li%ed as
husband and wife until #ctober 2001& Their union produced one offsprin2&
8
!urin2 their cohabitation, petitioner learned that the di%orce decree issued by the court in the !o1inican Republic which
@dissol%ed@ the 1arria2e between Tristan and 8ily was not reco2ni4ed in the Philippines and that her 1arria2e to Tristan was
dee1ed %oid under Philippine law& Ahen she confronted Tristan about this, the latter assured her that he would le2ali4e their
union after he obtains an annul1ent of his 1arria2e with 8ily& Tristan further pro1ised the petitioner that he would adopt their son
so that he would be entitled to an e?ual share in his estate as that of each of his children with 8ily&
9
#n ,u2ust 1+, 2001, Tristan filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his 1arria2e to 8ily with the Re2ional Trial (ourt of
3ue4on (ity, doc;eted as (ase $o& 3-01-0080/&
Subse?uently, petitioner filed a Motion for 8ea%e to File nter%ention
10
clai1in2 that she has a le2al interest in the 1atter in
liti2ation because she ;nows certain infor1ation which 1i2ht aid the trial court at a truthful, fair and >ust ad>udication of the
annul1ent case, which the trial court 2ranted on Septe1ber +0, 2002& Petitioner6s co1plaint-in-inter%ention was also ordered
ad1itted&
Tristan filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the (ourt of ,ppeals see;in2 to annul the order dated Septe1ber +0,
2002 of the trial court& The (ourt of ,ppeals 2ranted the petition and declared as null and %oid the Septe1ber +0, 2002 #rder of
the trial court 2rantin2 the 1otion for lea%e to file inter%ention and ad1ittin2 the co1plaint-in-inter%ention&
Petitioner6s 1otion for reconsideration was denied, hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition filed under Rule )* of the
Rules of (ourt& Petitioner contends that the (ourt of ,ppeals 2ra%ely abused its discretion in disre2ardin2 her le2al interest in the
annul1ent case between Tristan and 8ily&
The petition lac;s 1erit&
#rdinarily, the proper recourse of an a22rie%ed party fro1 a decision of the (ourt of ,ppeals is a petition for re%iew on certiorari
under Rule 0* of the Rules of (ourt& Bowe%er, if the error sub>ect of the recourse is one of >urisdiction, or the act co1plained of
was 2ranted by a court with 2ra%e abuse of discretion a1ountin2 to lac; or e=cess of >urisdiction, as alle2ed in this case, the
proper re1edy is a petition for certiorari under Rule )* of the said Rules&
11
This is based on the pre1ise that in issuin2 the
assailed decision and resolution, the (ourt of ,ppeals acted with 2ra%e abuse of discretion, a1ountin2 to e=cess of lac; of
>urisdiction and there is no plain, speedy and ade?uate re1edy in the ordinary course of law& , re1edy is considered plain,
speedy, and ade?uate if it will pro1ptly relie%e the petitioner fro1 the in>urious effect of the >ud21ent and the acts of the lower
court&
12
t is therefore incu1bent upon the petitioner to establish that the (ourt of ,ppeals acted with 2ra%e abuse of discretion a1ountin2
to e=cess or lac; of >urisdiction when it pro1ul2ated the assailed decision and resolution&
Ae ha%e pre%iously ruled that 2ra%e abuse of discretion 1ay arise when a lower court or tribunal %iolates or contra%enes the
(onstitution, the law or e=istin2 >urisprudence& 5y 2ra%e abuse of discretion is 1eant, such capricious and whi1sical e=ercise of
>ud21ent as is e?ui%alent to lac; of >urisdiction& The abuse of discretion 1ust be 2ra%e as where the power is e=ercised in an
arbitrary or despotic 1anner by reason of passion or personal hostility and 1ust be so patent and 2ross as to a1ount to an
e%asion of positi%e duty or to a %irtual refusal to perfor1 the duty en>oined by or to act at all in conte1plation of law&
1+
The word
@capricious,@ usually used in tande1 with the ter1 @arbitrary,@ con%eys the notion of willful and unreasonin2 action& Thus, when
see;in2 the correcti%e hand of certiorari, a clear showin2 of caprice and arbitrariness in the e=ercise of discretion is i1perati%e&
10
The Rules of (ourt laid down the para1eters before a person, not a party to a case can inter%ene, thusC
Aho 1ay inter%ene& D , person who has a le2al interest in the 1atter in liti2ation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an
interest a2ainst both, or is so situated as to be ad%ersely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody
of the court or of an officer thereof 1ay, with lea%e of court, be allowed to inter%ene in the action& The court shall consider
whether or not the inter%ention will unduly delay or pre>udice the ad>udication of the ri2hts of the ori2inal parties, and whether or
not the inter%enor6s ri2hts 1ay be fully protected in a separate proceedin2&
1*
The re?uire1ents for inter%ention areC EaF le2al interest in the 1atter in liti2ation7 and EbF consideration 1ust be 2i%en as to
whether the ad>udication of the ori2inal parties 1ay be delayed or pre>udiced, or whether the inter%enor6s ri2hts 1ay be protected
in a separate proceedin2 or not&
1)
8e2al interest, which entitles a person to inter%ene, 1ust be in the 1atter in liti2ation and of such direct and i11ediate character
that the inter%enor will either 2ain or lose by direct le2al operation and effect of the >ud21ent&
1/
Such interest 1ust be actual,
direct and 1aterial, and not si1ply contin2ent and e=pectant&
18
Petitioner clai1s that her status as the wife and co1panion of Tristan for 1/ years %ests her with the re?uisite le2al interest
re?uired of a would-be inter%enor under the Rules of (ourt&
Petitioner6s clai1 lac;s 1erit& <nder the law, petitioner was ne%er the le2al wife of Tristan, hence her clai1 of le2al interest has
no basis&
Ahen petitioner and Tristan 1arried on July 10, 1980, Tristan was still lawfully 1arried to 8ily& The di%orce decree that Tristan
and 8ily obtained fro1 the !o1inican Republic ne%er dissol%ed the 1arria2e bond between the1& t is basic that laws relatin2 to
fa1ily ri2hts and duties, or to the status, condition and le2al capacity of persons are bindin2 upon citi4ens of the Philippines,
e%en thou2h li%in2 abroad&
19
Re2ardless of where a citi4en of the Philippines 1i2ht be, he or she will be 2o%erned by Philippine
laws with respect to his or her fa1ily ri2hts and duties, or to his or her status, condition and le2al capacity& Bence, if a Filipino
re2ardless of whether he or she was 1arried here or abroad, initiates a petition abroad to obtain an absolute di%orce fro1
spouse and e%entually beco1es successful in 2ettin2 an absolute di%orce decree, the Philippines will not reco2ni4e such
absolute di%orce&
20
Ahen Tristan and 8ily 1arried on May 18, 19)8, their 1arria2e was 2o%erned by the pro%isions of the (i%il (ode
21
which too;
effect on ,u2ust +0, 19*0& n the case of Tenchavez v. Escano
22
we heldC
G1H That a forei2n di%orce between Filipino citi4ens, sou2ht and decreed after the effecti%ity of the present (i%il (ode GRep& ,ct
$o& +8)H, is not entitled to reco2nition as %alid in this >urisdiction7 and neither is the 1arria2e contracted with another party by the
di%orced consort, subse?uently to the forei2n decree of di%orce, entitled to %alidity in the country& G'1phasis addedH
Thus, petitioner6s clai1 that she is the wife of Tristan e%en if their 1arria2e was celebrated abroad lac;s 1erit& Thus, petitioner
ne%er ac?uired the le2al interest as a wife upon which her 1otion for inter%ention is based&
Since petitioner6s 1otion for lea%e to file inter%ention was bereft of the indispensable re?uire1ent of le2al interest, the issuance
by the trial court of the order 2rantin2 the sa1e and ad1ittin2 the co1plaint-in-inter%ention was attended with 2ra%e abuse of
discretion& (onse?uently, the (ourt of ,ppeals correctly set aside and declared as null and %oid the said order&
AB'R'F#R', the petition is !SMSS'!& The assailed !ecision dated July 2*, 200+ and Resolution dated January 2+, 2000 of
the (ourt of ,ppeals in (,-.&R& SP $o& /00*) are A(RME%.
$o pronounce1ent as to costs&
S# #R!'R'!&
CONSUELO *NARES+SANT(AGO
,ssociate Justice
,E CONCURC
ARTEM(O -. PANGAN(.AN
(hief Justice
(hairperson
MA. AL(C(A AUSTR(A+MART(NEZ
,ssociate Justice
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
,sscociate Justice
M(N(TA -. C/(CO+NAZAR(O
,ssociate Justice
( ' R T F ( , T # $
Pursuant to Section 1+, ,rticle " of the (onstitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the abo%e !ecision were
reached in consultation before the case was assi2ned to the writer of the opinion of the (ourt6s !i%ision&
ARTEM(O -. PANGAN(.AN
(hief Justice
oo#no#0'
1
Rollo, pp& 2)-+1& Penned by ,ssociate Justice 'u2enio S& 8abitoria and concurred in by ,ssociate Justices
,ndres 5& Reyes, Jr& and Re2alado '& Maa1bon2&
2
Id& at /0& Penned by Jud2e Mariflor P& Pun4alan (astillo&
+
Id& at 09-*8&
0
Id& at ++&
*
Referred as 8ily (ora4on (atindi2 in so1e parts of the records&
)
Rollo, p& 2/&
/
Id& at +0&
8
Id& at +*&
9
Id& at 28&
10
Id& at 0*-08&
11
!el2ado %& (ourt of ,ppeals, .&R& $o& 1+/881, !ece1ber 21, 2000, 00/ S(R, 002, 011&
12
To1as (laudio Me1orial (olle2e, nc& %& (ourt of ,ppeals, .&R& $o& 1*2*)8, February 1), 2000, 02+ S(R,
122, 1+2&
1+
5anal %& Pan2aniban, .&R& $o& 1)/0/0, $o%e1ber 1*, 200*&
10
#lanolan %& (o11ission on 'lections, .&R& $o& 1)*091, March +1, 200*, 0*0 S(R, 80/, 810&
1*
R<8'S #F (#<RT, Rule 19, Sec& 1&
1)
$ordic ,sia 8i1ited %& (ourt of ,ppeals, .&R& $o& 1111*9, July 1+, 2000, 0+0 S(R, 19*, 198&
1/
Id& at 199&
18
Pa2talunan %& Ta1ayo, .&R& $o& *0281, March 19, 1990, 18+ S(R, 2*2, 2*/&
19
("8 (#!', ,rt& 1*&
20
Sta& Maria, Persons and Family Relations, Fourth 'dition, p& 2+&
21
Republic ,ct $o& +8) G19*0H&
22
122 Phil& /*2, /)* G19)*H&
The 8awphil Pro>ect - ,rellano 8aw Foundation