G.R. No. L-18034 - Buenaventura vs. Ramos

On March 24, 2011, respondent Raquel M. Cada-Deapera filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 130, Caloocan City (RTC-Caloocan), docketed as Special Civil Action Case No. C-4344.
Respondent demanded the immediate issuance of the writ directing the petitioner, Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante, to produce her biological daughter, minor Criselda M. Cada, and return custody to her.
Petitioner was indicated to have three known addresses: two in Quezon City and one in Caloocan City.

On March 25, 2011, the RTC-Caloocan issued the writ of habeas corpus, ordering petitioner to bring the child on March 28, 2011.
The Sheriff failed to personally serve petitioner at the indicated addresses, but on March 29, 2011, copies of the court processes were left at petitioner’s residence in Caloocan City, witnessed by respondent’s counsel and barangay officials.
Petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearings.

On March 31, 2011, petitioner filed a Petition for Guardianship of Criselda before RTC, Branch 89, Quezon City (RTC-Quezon City).
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the guardianship petition citing litis pendentia and other grounds.
On June 3, 2011, respondent filed a criminal kidnapping case against petitioner and her counsel before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office.
On July 12, 2011, RTC-Quezon City granted respondent’s motion and dismissed the guardianship case due to the pendency of the habeas corpus petition at RTC-Caloocan.

Respondent moved for the ex parte issuance of an alias writ of habeas corpus, which was granted on August 8, 2011 by RTC-Caloocan.
The court directed the Sheriff to serve the alias writ upon petitioner at the Quezon City Office of the Assistant City Prosecutor on August 10, 2011.
The Sheriff personally served petitioner the order and alias writ during the preliminary investigation of the kidnapping case.

Petitioner, via special appearance, filed a motion to quash the writ and to dismiss the habeas corpus petition, arguing lack of personal service and thus lack of jurisdiction over her person.
On January 20, 2012, RTC-Caloocan denied petitioner’s omnibus motion, ruling that service of the writ is akin to summons and personal service anywhere is sufficient for jurisdiction acquisition.
The court directed petitioner to appear and bring the minor child before it.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC-Caloocan order denying the motion to quash.
On May 17, 2013, the CA dismissed the certiorari petition for lack of merit and directed RTC-Caloocan to proceed with the habeas corpus case.
The CA ruled favorably on the jurisdiction of RTC-Caloocan to hear the petition and enforce the writ within the judicial region.
The CA explained that summons service is not required under Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC; the writ of habeas corpus is a special proceeding with different rules.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on December 27, 2013.

Whether the Regional Trial Court, Branch 130, Caloocan City (RTC-Caloocan) has jurisdiction to hear and decide the habeas corpus petition regarding custody of the minor residing in Quezon City.

Assuming jurisdiction exists, whether the RTC-Caloocan validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and the minor by serving the writ of habeas corpus outside its territorial jurisdiction (i.e., in Quezon City).

Whether service of summons is required in a habeas corpus petition for custody of minors under the pertinent rules and jurisprudence.