Case Digest (G.R. No. 266116)
Facts:
David H. Carnabuci v. Harryvette Rowena Tagana‑Carnabuci, G.R. No. 266116, July 22, 2024, Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner David H. Carnabuci sought to regain custody of his two minor children, Rocco Antonino Carnabuci and Zahara Brigitte Carnabuci, by filing a Petition for Habeas Corpus with Child Custody on October 16, 2019 against respondents Harryvette Rowena Tagana‑Carnabuci (the mother), Joselyn B. Espiritu (the maternal grandmother), and "John Does."David and Harryvette were married in January 2013 and had two children born in December 2015 and February 2017. After marital difficulties marked by allegations of physical abuse by David, the parties executed a Memorandum of Agreement dated December 8, 2017 concerning shared custody and financial arrangements. In 2018 Harryvette went abroad for work; custody of the children was at times left with David and at other times with third parties. In 2019 Harryvette and Joselyn removed the children to Antipolo; David later demanded custody but was refused.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73, Antipolo City, found the habeas corpus petition sufficient, issued summons and a provisional custody order in October 2019 giving Joselyn provisional custody and restricting the children's travel (Hold Departure Order). After pretrial and social‑welfare evaluations, the RTC, in a Decision dated 9 February 2022, denied David's petition and awarded exclusive parental authority and permanent custody to Harryvette, with Joselyn authorized to exercise immediate custody in Harryvette's absence; it also granted visitation rights to David and ordered monthly child support and the continuation of the Hold Departure Order until the children reach seven years of age.
David moved for reconsideration which was denied, and he appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated 12 December 2022 (and Resolution of 2 March 2023 denying reconsideration), partly granted the appeal: it modified the RTC ruling to declare that David and Harryvette shall have joint parental authority while Harryvette shall have sole custody (not described as "permanent"), and it affirmed provisional custody to Joselyn and the visitation and support terms. The CA explained that custody awards are not immutable and held that the RTC erred in labeling the mother's custody "permanent."
David then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the CA's joint parenta...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying the Petition for Habeas Corpus with Child Custody when it awarded joint parental authority to petitioner David H. Carnabuci and respondent Harryvette Rowena Tagana‑Carnabuci but granted sole custody to respondent Harryvette Rowena Tagana‑Carnabuci?
- Can respondent Harryvette Rowena Tagana‑Carnabuci be considered "absent" under Article 212 of the Family Code because she is working abroad?
- May respondent Joselyn B. Espiritu, as maternal grandmother, exercise provisional...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)