G.R. No. 108292 - Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

The petitioner, Emilio A. Aquino, sought to recover parental custody of his minor son, Azilimson Gabriel T. Aquino, through a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Malolos City, Bulacan.
The respondents were Carmelita Tangkengko (petitioner’s mother-in-law), Morris Tangkengko, and Ranillo Tangkengko (petitioner’s brothers-in-law), who allegedly unlawfully withheld custody of Azilimson from the petitioner.
Emilio alleged a deterioration of relations within the family after constant quarrels and physical violence involving Ranillo Tangkengko, leading him to leave their conjugal home and live elsewhere while still trying to maintain access to his son.
The petitioner’s access to Azilimson diminished following the death of the child’s mother, Lovely Tangkengko-Aquino, on April 22, 2005; the respondents refused to disclose the child’s whereabouts despite petitioner’s efforts.
The respondents claimed that Azilimson was under their custody with petitioner’s consent since he had abandoned his son, and they assumed responsibility for his care.

The RTC dismissed petitioner’s habeas corpus petition on February 19, 2007, ruling that custody should remain with respondents in the best interest of the child.
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on April 26, 2007, on grounds of lateness, with RTC declaring the ruling final.
A certificate of finality was subsequently issued by the RTC.
The petitioner then filed a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, claiming his motion for reconsideration had been timely filed, supported by a Philippine Postal Corporation certification.
The RTC denied this petition for relief on September 26, 2007, stating that it was a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.
The petitioner then filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA) citing extrinsic fraud and denial of due process.
The CA dismissed the petition for annulment on March 10, 2011, due to non-compliance with procedural requirements under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court and other technical infirmities, including illegible copies of orders and failure to indicate material dates.
The CA denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on June 21, 2011, affirming its prior ruling.
The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner’s petition for annulment of judgment on technical grounds without considering the merits of the case.

Whether the RTC order dated February 19, 2007, should be annulled under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court based on extrinsic fraud and denial of due process.

Whether the RTC erred in concluding that the petitioner abandoned his wife and son, thus making him unfit for custody of his minor son.

Whether the trial court correctly awarded custody of the petitioner’s minor son to the maternal grandmother, respondent Carmelita Tangkengko, despite the provisions of Article 212 of the Family Code favoring custodial rights of the surviving parent.