Go-Yu v. Yu

 Doctrine: A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an original action, independent from the principal action, and not a part or a continuation of the trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of. It "is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”

Facts: Petitioner filed with the RTC Davao a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Dissolution of the Absolute Community of Property against the respondent. Petitioner was eventually diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder which was found to exist before the parties' marriage; and the fact that petitioner is comfortable with her behavior and sees nothing wrong with it or the need to change renders treatment improbable. Petitioner sought the dissolution of the parties' absolute community of properties claiming that their marriage is governed by the provisions of the Family Code and that they did not enter into any prenuptial agreement.

After petitioner has rested her case, respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence claiming that petitioner's alleged Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which supposedly renders her psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations, is not supported by clear evidence. RTC denied respondent’s Demurrer to Evidence. Respondent then filed a with the CA a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the Orders of the RTC which denied his Demurrer to Evidence and his subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. CA reversed and set aside the Orders of RTC and granted respondent's Demurrer to Evidence, thereby dismissing the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Dissolution of the Absolute Community of Property filed by petitioner. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied.

Issue: Whether or not the petition for certiorari may be rendered moot by the mere continuation of the proceedings in the RTC.

Held: It is settled that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an original action, independent from the principal action, and not a part or a continuation of the trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of. It "is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” As a consequence, "a petition for certiorari pending before a higher court does not necessarily become moot and academic by a continuation of the proceedings in the court of origin.” Hence, in the instant case, the special civil action for certiorari which respondent filed with the CA is independent from the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by petitioner. Being independent from the principal action, the petition for certiorari may not, thus, be rendered moot by the mere continuation of the proceedings in the RTC.

In her petition filed with the RTC, petitioner contends that her marriage to respondent is null and void from the beginning by reason of her psychological incapacity. However, the Court agrees with the CA that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent's Demurrer to Evidence because petitioner was unable to present sufficient evidence to show that she has the right to the relief she seeks.