Case Digest (G.R. No. 193652)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 193652)
Facts:
Infant Julian Yusay Caram, Represented by His Mother, Ma. Christina Yusay Caram, Petitioner, v. Atty. Marijoy D. Segui, Atty. Sally D. Escutin, Vilma B. Cabrera, Celia C. Yangco, and Office of the Solicitor General, Respondents, G.R. No. 193652, August 05, 2014, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ma. Christina Yusay Caram (Christina) had an extramarital relationship with Marcelino Constantino III and gave birth to Baby Julian on July 26, 2009. To avoid perceived family embarrassment and for financial reasons she executed a Deed of Voluntary Commitment placing the infant with Sun and Moon Home for Children, which in turn turned custody over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). The DSWD shouldered hospital expenses and, on November 27, 2009, Secretary Esperanza I. Cabral issued a certificate declaring Baby Julian legally available for adoption. A local matching conference occurred in January 2010 and, on February 5, 2010, Baby Julian was matched with prospective adoptive parents (the Medina spouses), and supervised trial custody began.
After the match Christina changed her mind and on May 5, 2010 wrote the DSWD asking that the adoption proceedings be suspended and that her family be reunited. The DSWD, through Atty. Marijoy Segui, circulated a memorandum dated May 28, 2010 advising that the certificate had attained finality (three months after the Deed of Voluntary Commitment) pursuant to R.A. No. 9523, Sec. 7, and that Christina’s statutory period to recover parental authority had lapsed. Efforts by Marcelino’s relatives to secure DNA testing were rebuffed by Assistant Secretary Vilma B. Cabrera on July 16, 2010, who likewise informed them that DSWD procedures were proper and that Christina must seek remedies in the regular courts.
On July 27, 2010 Christina filed a petition for a writ of amparo in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 106, Quezon City, alleging that DSWD officers had blackmailed her into surrendering her child and effectuated an enforced disappearance and deprivation of parental authority. The RTC issued a writ of amparo on July 28, 2010 commanding respondents to produce the child and to file a verified return. Respondents filed their return on August 2, 2010 and, citing threats to the child’s safety, did not produce him at the August 4 hearing; the hearing was reset to August 5. At the August 5 hearing the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered appearance; the judge narrowed the issues to jurisdiction, propriety of the amparo remedy, and whether custody should be returned to Christina. The child was presented to the court that day and Christina was allowed to see and photograph him.
On August 17, 2010 the RTC dismissed Christina’s amparo petition, holding that she had availed of the wrong remedy and should have filed a civil action under the Family Code and the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors; habeas corpus may be used only if there is an extreme urgency of illegal detention. Christina’s motion for reconsideration was denied on September 6, 2010. She then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with this Court, also challenging the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9523 and seeking relief by amparo to regain custody. The Supreme Court limited the controversy to whether an amparo petition is the proper recourse to obtain parental authority and custody of a minor child.
Issues:
- Is a petition for a writ of amparo the proper remedy to obtain parental authority and custody of a minor child?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)