Case Digest (G.R. No. 197356)
Facts:
Emilio A. Aquino v. Carmelita Tangkengko, Morris Tangkengko and Ranillo Tangkengko, G.R. No. 197356, August 24, 2016, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Emilio A. Aquino, filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos City (Special Proceeding No. 211‑M‑2005), seeking custody of his minor son Azilimson Gabriel T. Aquino from his late wife's mother and brothers, Carmelita Tangkengko, Morris Tangkengko and Ranillo Tangkengko. The RTC, after proceedings, dismissed the habeas corpus petition on February 19, 2007, finding that it was in the child's best interest to remain with the respondents. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on April 26, 2007 on the ground that it had been filed out of time. The RTC subsequently issued a certificate of finality.
Petitioner pursued relief by filing a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 (contending his motion for reconsideration was timely and supporting this with a Philippine Postal Corporation certification), but the RTC denied that petition on September 26, 2007, treating it as an impermissible second motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, petitioner brought a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 in the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging extrinsic fraud and denial of due process.
The CA dismissed the Rule 47 petition by resolution dated March 10, 2011, ruling that petitioner failed to comply with the conditions in Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, and noting other defects (e.g., illegible certified copies and failure to state material dates). The CA denied pe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment on procedural or “purely technical” grounds without addressing the merits?
- Whether the RTC order of February 19, 2007 should be annulled under Rule 47 on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process?
- Whether the trial court erred in concluding that petitioner abandoned his wife and son and is therefore unfit to be awarded custody?
- Whether the trial court erred in awarding custody to the maternal grandmothe...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)