Perez v. Catindig
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Tristan A. Catindig and Lily Gomez Catindig were married twice on May 16, 1968, and had four children. They later encountered marital problems and, upon advice, obtained a divorce from the Dominican Republic on April 30, 1984. Subsequently, on July 14, 1984, Tristan married petitioner Elmar O. Perez in Virginia, USA, and they had one child. Petitioner later learned that the Dominican Republic divorce was not recognized in the Philippines, rendering her marriage to Tristan void under Philippine law. Tristan then filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lily. Procedural History: Elmar O. Perez sought to intervene in the annulment case filed by Tristan A. Catindig against Lily Gomez Catindig, claiming a legal interest due to her long-term relationship and child with Tristan. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City granted Perez's motion for leave to file intervention and admitted her Complaint-in-Intervention. Tristan A. Catindig then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, assailing the trial court's order. The Court of Appeals granted this petition, setting aside the trial court's order. Perez's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: This petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is filed by Elmar O. Perez, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in disregarding her alleged legal interest in the annulment case between Tristan and Lily. She argues that her 17-year relationship with Tristan and their child should grant her legal standing to intervene. The petition seeks to reverse the Court of Appeals' ruling that she lacked the requisite legal interest for intervention.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in setting aside the Regional Trial Court's order granting petitioner's motion for leave to file intervention; and whether petitioner possesses the requisite legal interest to intervene in the annulment case between Tristan A. Catindig and Lily Gomez Catindig.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated July 25, 2003, and Resolution dated January 23, 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74456 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and legal interest: The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction, characterized by patent and gross evasion of a positive duty or refusal to act in contemplation of law. The requirements for intervention under the Rules of Court necessitate a "legal interest in the matter in litigation," which must be actual, direct, and material, not merely contingent or expectant. Petitioner claimed legal interest as the wife and companion of Tristan for 17 years. However, under Philippine law, her marriage to Tristan on July 14, 1984, was void because Tristan was still lawfully married to Lily at that time. The divorce decree obtained from the Dominican Republic is not recognized in the Philippines for Filipino citizens, as Philippine laws on family rights, duties, status, condition, and legal capacity are binding upon citizens even when abroad. This principle was established in Tenchavez v. Escano, which held that a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens after the effectivity of the Civil Code is not entitled to recognition, nor is a subsequent marriage contracted by a divorced consort valid in the Philippines. Therefore, petitioner never acquired the legal interest as a wife upon which her motion for intervention could be based. Since the motion for leave to file intervention lacked the indispensable requirement of legal interest, the trial court's order granting it was attended with grave abuse of discretion, and the Court of Appeals correctly set aside the said order.
Main Doctrine
A foreign divorce decree obtained by Filipino citizens is not recognized in the Philippines, and a subsequent marriage contracted by a Filipino citizen based on such a decree is considered void under Philippine law. Consequently, a party to such a void marriage does not possess the requisite legal interest to intervene in a case for the declaration of nullity of the prior marriage.