SUBJECT: TOPIC: CASE NAME: YU VS.

YU
Persons Voidable Marriage Effects of Pending ERIC JONATHAN YU vs. CAROLINE T. YU
Action/Decree
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
FC, Art. 49: 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. x x x It shall also provide for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent. (Emphasis as supplied by the SC in the case)

FC, Art. 50: 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 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. (Emphasis as supplied by the SC in the case)

A.M. No 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages), Sec. 21: 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. (Emphasis as supplied by the SC in the case)

PONENTE: CARPIO- Case Date: March 10, 2006

MORALES
CASE SUMMARY:
Petitioner Eric Yu filed a petition for habeas corpus in the CA to regain custody of his child Bianca
with respondent Caroline Yu. This would be dismissed on July 3, 2003.
After Caroline moved to Pasay City, Eric filed a petition in the Pasig RTC for the declaration of nullity
of marriage on June 12, 2003.
Caroline countered with her own petition for habeas corpus in the Pasay RTC on July 24, 2003 (after
dismissal of the CA of Erics original habeas corpus petition), including praying for the sole custody of
Bianca.
The Pasay RTC ruled that it had acquired jurisdiction of the custody aspect of the case over the Pasig
RTC, Carolines action being more recent and Eric not having amended his action on June 12, 2003 to
include custody, ostensibly to reflect the CAs dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. The Pasay RTC
dismissed Erics motion to dismiss Carolines petition and held that he committed forum shopping; a
claim which the CA affirmed.
The SC held that the Pasig RTC held jurisdiction of the custody aspect of the case based on Art. 49,
which holds that an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage necessary impleads with it the
matter of custody. The Pasig RTC being the earlier filing, it is the one clothed with jurisdiction, if so
to prevent multiplicity of suits.

DETAILED FACTS:

FIRSTINITIALLASTNAME_A2021 1
 On January 11, 2002, Petitioner Eric Yu (Eric) filed a petition for habeas corpus in the CA alleging that
his estranged wife, respondent Caroline Yu (Caroline) unlawfully withheld from him the custody of
their minor child, Bianca.
On March 3, 2002, Caroline filed for the declaration of nullity of marriage in the Pasig RTC, praying for
sole custody of Bianca. She would later retract this (via a Motion to Dismiss in December 2002) due
to moving to Pasay City and becoming too busy to handle such affairs as a direct result.
The CA awarded full custody of Bianca to Eric on March 21, 2002, during the pendency of the habeas
corpus case. The habeas corpus case would be dismissed on July 3, 2003, having become moot and
academic at the time.
On June 12, 2003, Eric filed his own petition in the Pasig RTC for the declaration of nullity of
marriage, also praying for the sole custody of Bianca.
On July 24, 2003, Caroline filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Pasay RTC, which also prayed for
the sole custody of Bianca. She also filed a counter-petition in the Pasig RTC, praying for the same
custody.
Despite the Pasig RTCs claim on October 30, 2003, of jurisdiction over the custody aspect of the
petition, the Pasay RTC declared on November 27, 2003, that it acquired jurisdiction over the
custody issue, denying Erics motion to dismiss in the process. It justified this claim of jurisdiction
over the Pasig RTC since Eric did not amend his petition for declaration of nullity of marriage after the
CA dismissed his habeas corpus filing on July 3, 2003. The Pasay RTC also held that Eric was guilty of
forum shopping, having filed his petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Pasig RTC
while his petition for habeas corpus in the CA was still pending.
The CA would later affirm both the contention by the Pasay RTC on Erics forum shopping, and the
jurisdiction acquired by the Pasay RTC over the custody aspect of the case, due to Carolines petition
for habeas corpus being filed (on July 24, 2003) after the dismissal by the CA of the original petition
of the same by Eric (filed on January 11, 2002 and dismissed on July 3, 2003).
The Supreme Court set the main issue as: whether the question of custody should be litigated before
the Pasay RTC or the Pasig RTC.
The Court held that, according to Articles 49 and 50 (and further affirmed by Sec. 21 of A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC), when Eric filed his petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage before the Pasig RTC
on June 12, 2003, he automatically submitted the issue of the custody of Bianca as an incident
thereof.
The Family Code provides that in a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage, the issue of
custody is deemed pleaded. This means that the filing of a new action for custody is unnecessary.
As such, the Pasig RTC has the more appropriate action to determine custody, the petition there
having been filed first and not being contrary to the second paragraph of Art. 50, which excepted if
such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings, there being none in this case.

[Additional clarification] On litis pendentia (a pending suit): refers to an action already proceeding
between two parties, concerning the same object. Any other action which matches the three criteria
for litis pendentia must be dismissed, the three being: a.) identity of parties (or at least representing
the same interest in both actions); b.) the identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the latter
being founded on the same facts; and c.) the identity in the two cases is such that judgment in the
pending case would amount to res judicata in the other. Here, both the Pasig and Pasay RTCs feature
cases which are litis pendentia vis--vis one another, with the SC ruling the action in the Pasig RTC
being the more appropriate one.

ISSUE: HOLDING:
W/N Pasay RTC retained the jurisdiction over the custody case. NO Upon the filing of the petition for declaration of absolute nullity
of marriage before the Pasig RTC, the aspect of custody was
automatically submitted as an incident thereof in according with Arts.

FIRSTINITIALLASTNAME_A2021 2
 49 and 50.
RULING:
Petition GRANTED. Pasig RTC ordered to continue proceedings; case filed in Pasay RTC DISMISSED.

FIRSTINITIALLASTNAME_A2021 3