Case Digest (G.R. No. 268979)
Facts:
Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto and Leonido and Rosalyn Empuerto v. Sheena Olpoc Cabrillos, G.R. No. 268979, February 05, 2025, the Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, SAJ., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto and his parents Leonido and Rosalyn Empuerto; respondent is Sheena Olpoc Cabrillos, mother of the minor Yuno Hanzo Cabrillos Empuerto. Jeffrey acknowledged paternity; the child was born on February 26, 2013. After the parents separated in 2017, Sheena took Yuno to live with her parents in Cotabato City; Jeffrey maintained contact and had Yuno stay with him during holidays. In March 2020 Jeffrey brought Yuno to Davao City and did not return him after COVID-19 lockdowns, and attempts by Sheena (with police and barangay assistance) to retrieve Yuno in July and August 2020 failed because Yuno refused to go.
On April 2021 Sheena filed a police blotter and a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 12, Family Court) in Davao City. The trial court issued the writ on May 3, 2021; at the May 5, 2021 implementation hearing the presiding judge held a preliminary conference with Jeffrey and Sheena and approved a compromise agreement between them that set forth custody terms and provided for turnover of custody to the mother after classes in July 2021. The May 5, 2021 Order incorporated the parties' agreement and declared the case closed and terminated. Petitioners moved for reconsideration asking for a full-blown trial; the trial court denied the motion on June 11, 2021, reiterating closure and termination.
Sheriff's returns showed the sheriff attempted to effect turnover on July 28, 2021, accompanied by social workers, but the child refused to go with his mother. Petitioners then filed an Urgent Verified Motion for Preliminary Restraints with the Court of Appeals seeking to restrain execution of the trial court's order and to remand the case for a full-blown trial. The Court of Appeals, in a September 27, 2022 Resolution, denied the preliminary injunction. In its October 18, 2022 Decision the Court of Appeals partly granted the appeal: it reversed the trial court's closure/termination order but deemed the May 5, 2021 agreement a provisional order awarding custody to be implemented pending trial and directed the trial court to proceed with hearing. A July 19, 2023 Court of Appeals Resolution denied petitioners' partial reconsideration and upheld its characterization of the May 5 Order as provisional, while finding Section 13 of the Rule on Custody inapplicable to Sheena's petition.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' October 18, 2022 Decision and July 19, 2023 Resolution, and sought a Temporary Restraining Order. This Court issued a temporary restraining order on...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in deeming the compromise agreement embodied in the trial court's May 5, 2021 Order a provisional order awarding custody and directing its immediate implementation pending a full-blown trial?
- Whether, upon return of the writ of habeas corpus, the trial court may lawfully determine custody without compliance with Section 13 of the Rule on Custody of Minors and whether custody pendente lite should remain with the actua...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)