Llave vs. Republic, G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011

ESTRELLITA JULIANO-LLAVE v.
REPULIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011, First Division (Del Castillo, J.)
DOCTRINE
"An application for certiorari is an independent action which is not part or a
continuation of the trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of." Rule
65 of the Rules of Court is explicit in stating that "[t]he petition shall not interrupt the course
of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction
has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case."
FACTS
Around 11 months before his death, Sen. Tamano married Estrellita twice – initially
under the Islamic laws and tradition and, subsequently, under a civil ceremony officiated
by an RTC Judge. In their marriage contracts, Sen. Tamano’s civil status was indicated as
‘divorced.’ Since then, Estrellita has been representing herself to the whole world as Sen.
Tamano’s wife, and upon his death, his widow. Private Respondents filed a complaint with
the RTC of Quezon City for the declaration of nullity of marriage between Estrellita and Sen.
Tamano for being bigamous.
Instead of submitting her answer, Estrellita filed a Motion to Dismiss where she
declared that Sen. Tamano and Zorayda are both Muslims who were married under the
Muslim rites.
RTC denied Estrellita’s motion which prompted her to file a certiorari petition.
During the pendency of the same, the RTC continued to try the case since there can be no
default in cases of declaration of nullity of marriage even if the respondent failed to file an
answer. When it was Estrellita’s turn to adduce evidence, the hearings set for such
purpose were postponed mostly at her instance until the trial court, on March 22, 1996,
suspended the proceedings in view of the CA’s temporary restraining order issued on
February 29, 1996, enjoining it from hearing the case.
ISSUES
Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment, even though the latter
was rendered prematurely because: a) the judgment was rendered without waiting for the
Supreme Court’s final resolution of her certiorari petition, i.e., G.R. No. 126603; b) she has
not yet filed her answer and thus was denied due process; and c) the public prosecutor did
not even conduct an investigation whether there was collusion
RULING
NO. Estrellita’s refusal to file an answer eventually led to the loss of her right to
answer; and her pending petition for certiorari/review on certiorari questioning the denial
of the motion to dismiss before the higher courts does not at all suspend the trial
proceedings of the principal suit before the RTC.
Firstly, it can never be argued that Estrellita was deprived of her right to due
process. She was never declared in default, and she even actively participated in the trial to
defend her interest. Estrellita invokes Judge Macias v. Macias 40 to justify the suspension of
the period to file an answer and of the proceedings in the trial court until her petition
for certiorari questioning the validity of the denial of her Motion to Dismiss has been
decided by this Court.
However, she opted to file, on April 10, 2001, a ‘Motion to Dismiss,’ instead of filing
an Answer to the complaint. The filing of said motion suspended the period for her to file
her Answer to the complaint. Until said motion is resolved by the Respondent Court with
finality, it behooved the Respondent Court to suspend the hearings of the case on the
merits. The Respondent Court, on April 19, 2001, issued its Order denying the ‘Motion to
Dismiss’ of the Petitioner. Under Section 6, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
[now Section 4], the Petitioner had the balance of the period provided for in Rule 11 of the
said Rules but in no case less than five (5) days computed from service on her of the
aforesaid Order of the Respondent Court within which to file her Answer to the complaint.
Estrellita obviously misappreciated Macias. All we pronounced therein is that the
trial court is mandated to suspend trial until it finally resolves the motion to dismiss that is
filed before it. Nothing in the above excerpt states that the trial court should suspend its
proceedings should the issue of the propriety or impropriety of the motion to dismiss be
raised before the appellate courts.
Estrellita argues that the trial court prematurely issued its judgment, as it should
have waited first for the resolution of her Motion to Dismiss before the CA and,
subsequently, before this Court. However, in upholding the RTC, the CA correctly ruled that
the pendency of a petition for certiorari does not suspend the proceedings before the trial
court.
When the CA judgment was elevated to us by way of Rule 45, we never issued any
order precluding the trial court from proceeding with the principal action. With her
numerous requests for postponements, Estrellita remained obstinate in refusing to file an
answer or to present her evidence when it was her turn to do so, insisting that the trial
court should wait first for our decision in G.R. No. 126603.
Her failure to file an answer and her refusal to present her evidence were
attributable only to herself and she should not be allowed to benefit from her own dilatory
tactics to the prejudice of the other party. Sans her answer, the trial court correctly
proceeded with the trial and rendered its Decision after it deemed Estrellita to have waived
her right to present her side of the story. Neither should the lower court wait for the
decision in G.R. No. 126603 to become final and executory, nor should it wait for its records
to be remanded back to it because G.R. No. 126603 involves strictly the propriety of the
Motion to Dismiss and not the issue of validity of marriage.

Llave vs. Republic, G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Llave vs. Republic, G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011

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

Llave vs. Republic, G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESTRELLITA JULIANO-LLAVE v.

REPULIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

You might also like