G.R. No. 164915 - Yu vs. Yu

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164915)
Advanced

Facts:

Parties and relationship

Eric Jonathan Yu (petitioner) and Caroline T. Yu (respondent) were spouses.
They had a minor child, Bianca.

First custody proceeding: habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals

On January 11, 2002, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that respondent unlawfully withheld from him the custody of Bianca.
The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 68460.
Petitioner prayed for the award to him of the sole custody of Bianca.

Second custody proceeding initiated: nullity of marriage in the Pasig RTC

On or about March 3, 2002, respondent filed before the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and dissolution of the absolute community of property.
The petition prayed for:

The award to her of the sole custody of Bianca; and
The fixing of petitioner’s visiting schedule “subject only to the final and executory judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68460.”

Petitioner and respondent obtained interim custody dispositions in the appellate habeas corpus case.

Interim custody and visitation while the CA habeas corpus case was pending

By Resolution of March 21, 2002, the Court of Appeals awarded petitioner full custody of Bianca during the pendency of the habeas corpus case.
The Court of Appeals granted respondent full visitation rights.
On April 5, 2002, petitioner and respondent filed a Joint Motion to Approve Interim Visitation Agreement.
By Resolution of April 24, 2002, the Court of Appeals approved the interim visitation agreement.
On April 18, 2002, respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for the Modification of her visiting rights under the interim agreement.
Petitioner filed an Opposition with a Motion to Cite Respondent for Contempt, contending that respondent’s filing before the Pasig RTC constituted forum shopping.
By Resolution of July 5, 2002, the Court of Appeals ordered respondent and her counsel to amend her Pasig RTC petition regarding the custody aspect, under pain of contempt.
In compliance, respondent filed a Motion to Admit Amended Petition before the Pasig RTC.
In December 2002, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss her Pasig RTC petition without prejudice, citing inability to devote adequate time and attention due to constraints from a new residence and busy schedule at Pasay City.
On March 28, 2003, the Pasig RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Petitioner filed a new nullity petition in the Pasig RTC

On June 12, 2003, petitioner filed his own petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and dissolution of absolute community of property before the Pasig RTC, docketed as JDRC Case No. 6190.
Petitioner prayed for the award to him of the sole custody of Bianca, subject to the final resolution by the Court of Appeals of his habeas corpus petition.

Resolution of the CA habeas corpus case

The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s habeas corpus petition by Resolution of July 3, 2003 for having become moot and academic.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the “restraint on the liberty of the person alleged to be in restraint [having been] lifted.”

Respondent initiated a habeas corpus case in the Pasay RTC

On July 24, 2003, respondent filed before the Pasay RTC a petition for habeas corpus, denominated as an “Amended Petition.”
The petition prayed, among others, for the award of sole custody to respondent or, alternatively, for an order “replicating and reiterating the enforceability of the Interim Visiting Agreement,” which had been approved by the Court of Appeals.
The petition was docketed as SP Proc. No. 03-0048.

Petitioner sought custody relief in the Pasig RTC during the pendency of respondent’s Pasay RTC habeas corpus

On July 25, 2003, petitioner filed before the Pasig RTC in his nullity petition an urgent motion praying for custody of Bianca during the case.
Acting on respondent’s habeas corpus petition, Branch 113 of the Pasay RTC issued:

A Writ of Habeas Corpus;
A Hold Departure Order; and
Summons addressed to petitioner.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the Pasay RTC petition on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action, forum shopping, and litis pendentia, citing the pending Pasig RTC nullity petition.

Pasay RTC interim custody order and petitioner’s stance

While respondent’s habeas corpus petition was pending, the Pasay RTC issued an Order of August 12, 2003.
The order required that Bianca stay with petitioner from Sunday afternoon to Saturday morning.
It also required that Bianca stay with the mother from Saturday 1:00 in the afternoon up to Sunday 1:00 in the afternoon.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the Pasay RTC had no jurisdiction to issue the order.
Petitioner filed a Manifestation on August 14, 2003, stating that he was constrained to comply but reserved the position that he was not submitting the custody issue and himself to the Pasay RTC’s jurisdiction.

Proceedings and rulings in the nullity and custody issues before the Pasig RTC

Respondent filed her Answer with Counter-Petition in the Pasig RTC nullity case, praying for award of sole custody to her, subject to final disposition of the Pasay RTC habeas corpus.
By Omnibus Order of October 30, 2003, the Pasig RTC:

Asserted its jurisdiction over the custody aspect of petitioner’s petition; and
Directed compliance with the interim visitation agreement unless the parties agreed to a new bilateral agreement approved by the court.

The Pasig RTC granted custody of Bianca to petitioner for the duration of the case.

Pasay RTC resolution denying dismissal and the appellate court’s affirmance

The Pasay RTC denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss by Order of November 27, 2003.
The Pasay RTC reasoned that:

In custody cases involving minors, the purpose of habeas corpus was to determine the right of custody, not the illegal restraint of liberty.
Respondent’s filing in Pasay City was within A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, “Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Minors.”
On forum shopping, petitioner, not respondent, committed it by filing the Pasig RTC declaration of nullity case while his CA habeas corpus petition remained pending.
Assuming arguendo no forum shopping by petitioner, the Pasay RTC acquired jurisdiction over the custody issue ahead of the Pasig RTC because petitioner did not amend his Pasig petition immediately after the Court of Appeals dismissed his CA habeas corpus petition on July 3, 2003.
There was no litis pendentia because two elements were allegedly lacking:

Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for; and
Identity of other particulars such that any judgment would amount to res judicata in the other case.

Petitioner assailed the denial of dismissal through a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Court of Appea...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Which court had jurisdiction to litigate the custody of Bianca—Pasay RTC or Pasig RTC

Whether the custody issue should be litigated before the Pasay RTC (respondent’s habeas corpus case) or before the Pasig RTC (petitioner’s nullity petition for declaration of nullity and dissolution).

Whether the custody issue in the Pasig nullity case would operate as res judicata against the Pasay habeas corpus case

Whether judgment in the Pasig RTC nullity case, regardless of outcome, would amount to res judicata in the Pasay habeas corpus case due to identity of jurisdictional requisit

...(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164915)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164915)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164915) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164915) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164915)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164915)
Advanced