Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 362 views

    Yu Vs Yu

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Sison Go
    1. The case involved a dispute over custody of a child named Bianca between her parents, Eric and Caroline, who had filed separate cases for nullity of marriage and habeas corpus in different courts. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Pasig RTC, where Eric had filed for nullity of marriage, should decide the custody issue according to provisions of the Family Code on determining custody during and after nullity cases. 3. The ruling aimed to avoid multiple suits over the same issue and promoted the Pasig case as the more appropriate action under the law to settle all related matters, including child custody, from the nullity case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Yu Vs Yu

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Sison Go
    362 views2 pages
    1. The case involved a dispute over custody of a child named Bianca between her parents, Eric and Caroline, who had filed separate cases for nullity of marriage and habeas corpus in different courts. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Pasig RTC, where Eric had filed for nullity of marriage, should decide the custody issue according to provisions of the Family Code on determining custody during and after nullity cases. 3. The ruling aimed to avoid multiple suits over the same issue and promoted the Pasig case as the more appropriate action under the law to settle all related matters, including child custody, from the nullity case.

    Original Description:

    Persons and family relations digest. Principles: Effects of Pending Action/Decree

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The case involved a dispute over custody of a child named Bianca between her parents, Eric and Caroline, who had filed separate cases for nullity of marriage and habeas corpus in different courts. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Pasig RTC, where Eric had filed for nullity of marriage, should decide the custody issue according to provisions of the Family Code on determining custody during and after nullity cases. 3. The ruling aimed to avoid multiple suits over the same issue and promoted the Pasig case as the more appropriate action under the law to settle all related matters, including child custody, from the nullity case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    362 views2 pages

    Yu Vs Yu

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Sison Go
    1. The case involved a dispute over custody of a child named Bianca between her parents, Eric and Caroline, who had filed separate cases for nullity of marriage and habeas corpus in different courts. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Pasig RTC, where Eric had filed for nullity of marriage, should decide the custody issue according to provisions of the Family Code on determining custody during and after nullity cases. 3. The ruling aimed to avoid multiple suits over the same issue and promoted the Pasig case as the more appropriate action under the law to settle all related matters, including child custody, from the nullity case.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Digest Author: Paolo Go

    Yu vs Yu Petition: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals Petitioner: Eric Jonathan Yu Respondent: Caroline Tanchuay-Yu Ponente: J. Carpio-Morales Date: March 10, 2006 Facts: January 11, 2002- Eric filed for a petition for habeas corpus on CA alleging Caroline unlawfully withheld from him the custody of their daughter (Bianca). This petition included a prayer to award him sole custody. March 3, 2002- Caroline filed a petition in Pasig RTC for nullity of their marriage and dissolution of absolute community or property. She also prayed for sole custody of Bianca and for fixing of schedule of petitioners visiting rights. March 21, 2002- CA awarded Eric full custody of Bianca during the pendency of the habeas corpus case w/ full visitation rights for Caroline. April 5, 2002- Both of them filed a Joint Motion to Approve Interim Visitation Agreement (IVA). (Approved April 24, 2002) April 18, 2002- Caroline filed a motion to modify her visiting rights under the IVA. Eric said that what Caroline did was forum shopping in light of her filing of the petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage before Pasig RTC. July 5, 2002- CA ordered Caroline to amend her petition in the RTC in so far as the custody aspect is concerned, under pain of contempt. Caroline filed a motion to admit amended petition. December 2002- Caroline had the case dismissed on grounds of constrains on resources and busy schedule. Pasig RTC granted her motion and dismissed the petition w/o prejudice.

    June 12, 2003 Eric filed for his own petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and dissolution of the absolute community of property before the Pasig RTC w/ a prayer to award him sole custody of Bianca, subject to the final decision of his habeas corpus case in CA. July 3, 2003- CA dismissed Habeas Corpus case for being moot and academic as restraints on the liberty of the person alleging to be in restraint has been lifted. July 24, 2003- Caroline before Pasay RTC filed a petition for habeas corpus also praying for sole custody of Bianca or for an issuance of an order reiterating the enforceability of their IVA. July 25, 2003- Eric filed for an urgent motion praying for custody of Bianca for the duration of the case. Pasig and Pasay RTC fight over which court should litigate on custody of Bianca. Hence, petitioner brought the case up to SC.

    Pertinent laws/provisions: Art. 49. Family Code: During the pendency of the 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. It shall also provide for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent. Paragraph 2. Art. 50. Family Code: The final judgment in such cases [for the annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage] shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the

    Digest Author: Paolo Go


    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. Sec. 21. Rule on Declaration Of Absolute Nullity Of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages : Liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes.Upon entry of the 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, 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. Issue: 1. On which court should the question of custody over Bianca be litigated? (Pasay or Pasig RTC?) Ruling: 1. Pasig RTC should litigate on the question regarding Biancas custody as the petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage is the more appropriate action to determine the issue on who should have custody over Bianca. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The August 10, 2004 decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSEDand SET ASIDE,and another is entered DISMISSING Pasay City Regional Trial Court Sp. Proc. No. 03-0048-CFM and ordering Branch 69 of Pasig City Regional Trial Court to continue, with dispatch, the proceedings in JDRC No. 6190. Ratio Decidendi: Judgment on the issue of custody in the nullity of marriage case before the Pasig RTC, regardless of which party would prevail, would constitute res judicata on the habeas corpus case before the Pasay RTC since the former has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Art 49 of FC provides that during the pendency of the action for declaration of nullity of marriage, the court shall provide for the custody of their common children and shall also provide for visitation rights of the other parent. Art 50 of FC says that on Final judgment of cases for declaration of nullity of marriage the court shall provide for the custody of children unless other matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. That Erics filing for declaration of nullity of their marriage before the Pasig RTC automatically submitted the issue of the custody of Bianca as an incident thereof in regards to Sec 21 of the Rule on Declaration Of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (See the provision above) The only explicit exception to the earlier-quoted second paragraph of Art. 50 of the Family Code is when "such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings," which is not the case here. In view of the second paragraph of Article 50 of the FC the case before the Pasig RTC is the more appropriate action. Dismiss Pasay case to avoid multiplicity of suits.

    Principles: Effects of Pending Action/Decree

    You might also like