Choa VS Choa

CHOA VS CHOA PANGANIBAN; Nov 26, 2002 392 SCRA 641 NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 FACTS Petitioner (Leni) and respondent (Alfonso)were married. Out of this union, two children were born. Alfonso Choa, filed before the RTC of Negros Occidental a Complaint for the annulment of his marriage to petitioner. Afterwards he filed an Amended Complaint for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to petitioner based on her alleged psychological incapacity. The case went to trial with respondent presenting his evidence in chief. After his last witness testified, he submitted his Formal Offer of Exhibits. Instead of offering any objection to it, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer to Evidence)1. The lower court then allowed a number of pleadings to be filed thereafter. - Finally, the RTC denied petitioners Demurrer to Evidence. Her Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. - Petitioner elevated the case to the CA by way of a Petition for Certiorari but it was also denied. The CA held that the denial of the demurrer was merely interlocutory; hence, certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was not available. The proper remedy was for the defense to present evidence; and if an unfavorable decision was handed down later, to take an appeal therefrom. In any
1
event, no grave abuse of discretion was committed by respondent judge in issuing the assailed Orders. ISSUES: 1. WON certiorari is available to correct an order denying a demurrer to evidence 2. WON in its denial, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by violating or ignoring the applicable law and jurisprudence HELD 1. YES. Ratio In general, interlocutory orders are neither appealable nor subject to certiorari proceedings. However, this rule is not absolute. Though interlocutory in character, an order denying a demurrer to evidence may be the subject of a certiorari proceeding, provided the petitioner can show that it was issued with grave abuse of discretion; and that appeal in due course is not plain, adequate or speedy under the circumstances. Indeed, when the plaintiffs evidence is utterly and patently insufficient to prove the complaint, it would be capricious for a trial judge to deny the demurrer and to require the defendant to present evidence to controvert a nonexisting case. Verily, the denial constitutes an unwelcome imposition on the courts docket and an assault on the defendants resources and peace of mind. In short, such denial needlessly delays and, thus, effectively denies justice. Reasoning a. Jurisprudence In Tadeo v. People the Court declared that appeal -- not certiorari -- in due time was indeed the proper remedy, provided there was no grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction or oppressive exercise of judicial authority. b. Textual interpretation of Rules 41 and 65 of the Rules of Court. These provision expressly recognize this exception and allow certiorari when the lower court acts with grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of an interlocutory order.
A demurrer to evidence is defined as an objection or exception by one of the parties in an action at law, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law (whether true or not) to make out his case or sustain the issue. The demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiffs evidence to sustain a verdict. In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.
c. In Cruz v. People, this exception was stressed by the Court. 2. YES. The evidence against respondent (herein petitioner) is grossly insufficient to support any finding of psychological incapacity that would warrant a declaration of nullity of the parties marriage. Reasoning a. Even if taken as true, the testimony of respondent basically complains about three aspects of petitioners personality; namely, her alleged (1) lack of attention to their children, (2) immaturity and (3) lack of an intention of procreative sexuality. None of these three, singly or collectively, constitutes psychological incapacity. Far from it. b. Jurisprudence - In Santos v. CA, the Court clearly explained that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. - In Republic v. Molina, we ruled that the psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal or a neglect in the performance of some marital obligations. We stressed that a mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. - In the case at bar, the evidence adduced by respondent merely shows that he and his wife could not get along with each other. There was absolutely no showing of the gravity or juridical antecedence or incurability of the problems besetting their marital union. Sorely lacking in respondents evidence is proof that the psychological incapacity was grave enough to bring about the disability of a party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. - Respondents pious peroration that petitioner lacked the intention of procreative sexuality is easily belied by the fact that two children were born during their union. Moreover, there is absolutely no showing that the alleged
defect was already existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. c. Most telling is the insufficiency, if not incompetency, of the supposed expert testimony presented by respondent. His witness, Dr. Antonio M. Gauzon, utterly failed to identify and prove the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. Specifically, his testimony did not show that the incapacity, if true, was medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Neither did he testify that it was grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. His testimony established merely that the spouses had an incompatibility, a defect that could possibly be treated or alleviated through psychotherapy. Dr. Gauzon had no personal knowledge of the facts he testified to, as these had merely been relayed to him by respondent. The former was working on pure suppositions and secondhand information fed to him by one side. Consequently, his testimony can be dismissed as unscientific and unreliable. Thus, hearsay or unreliable evidence should be disregarded whether objected to or not, because it has no probative value. - The totality of evidence presented by respondent was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity -- more so without any medical, psychiatric or psychological examination. DISPOSITION The Petition is GRANTED and the assailed CA Decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents Demurrer to Evidence is GRANTED, and the case for declaration of nullity of marriage based on the alleged psychological incapacity of petitioner is DISMISSED.

Choa VS Choa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Choa VS Choa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Choa VS Choa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHOA VS CHOA PANGANIBAN; Nov 26, 2002 392 SCRA 641 NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari under

You might also like