3/4/24, 3:34 PM Bucal vs.

Bucal

Jurisprudence.ph
QR Link

Title
Bucal vs. Bucal

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. 206957 PERLAS- Jun 17, 2015
BERNABE, J

In the case of Bucal v. Bucal, the Supreme Court rules in favor of petitioner
Cherith A. Bucal, declaring the visitation rights granted by the Regional Trial
Court as void due to exceeding its authority and granting relief not requested
in the pleadings.

Facts:
The case of Bucal v. Bucal involves petitioner Cherith A. Bucal and respondent
Manny P. Bucal. Cherith and Manny were married on July 29, 2005, and have a
daughter named Francheska A. Bucal, born on November 22, 2005. Cherith filed a
Petition for the Issuance of a Protection Order (RTC Petition) under the Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. She alleged that Manny
had never shown her love and care, nor supported her and Francheska financially.
Cherith also claimed that Manny's alcoholism led to verbal abuse and negatively
affected her health. In her petition, Cherith sought a Temporary Protection Order
(TPO) and custody of Francheska.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the TPO but also granted visitation rights
to Manny every Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Cherith filed a motion
seeking clarification of the visitation rights, and the RTC issued a Permanent
Protection Order (PPO) granting the same visitation rights. Cherith then filed a
motion to reverse the grant of visitation rights, arguing that it defeated the
purpose of the protection order. Manny filed an omnibus motion seeking the
admission of his answer, the reversal of the PPO, and a trial. Cherith opposed the
motion, stating that Manny did not oppose the visitation rights during the initial
proceedings. The RTC modified its order, specifying the time and place for
visitation.
https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/bucal-v-bucal?q=G.R.+No+206957 1/2
3/4/24, 3:34 PM Bucal vs. Bucal

Cherith filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that
the RTC exceeded its authority in granting visitation rights not requested in the
pleadings. The CA dismissed the petition, stating that Cherith should have filed a
motion for reconsideration before resorting to certiorari.

Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether the RTC exceeded its authority in granting
visitation rights not requested in the pleadings.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cherith, declaring the visitation rights
granted by the RTC as void.

Ratio:
The Supreme Court held that the CA erred in dismissing Cherith's certiorari
petition. It emphasized that the RTC cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the
pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by a party. Due process
considerations require that parties be given notice and an opportunity to be heard
on the relief being sought. In this case, neither party requested visitation rights,
and Cherith consistently opposed them. The grant of visitation rights by the RTC
was deemed an act of grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Supreme Court
declared the visitation rights void.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the CA and declared
the visitation rights granted by the RTC as void.

https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/bucal-v-bucal?q=G.R.+No+206957 2/2