Title
Aquino vs. Tangkengko
Case
G.R. No. 197356
Decision Date
Aug 24, 2016
Father seeks custody of son after wife's death; courts deny petition, citing abandonment and procedural errors, awarding custody to maternal grandmother.
custody
minor son
legal avenues

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197356)

Factual Background

The petitioner alleged that he married Lovely Tangkengko-Aquino in 1997 and fathered a minor son, Azilimson Gabriel T. Aquino. The family moved from Malabon to Bulacan in July 2001 to live with the Tangkengko family. By 2004 marital discord arose between the petitioner and members of Lovely's family, including respondent Ranillo, which led the petitioner to leave the conjugal dwelling and reside in Quezon City. The petitioner continued to support the child and enjoyed visitation on weekends until the death of Lovely on April 22, 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner alleged that respondents refused to inform him of his son's whereabouts and thereby deprived him of custody. The respondents countered that Azilimson remained in Bulacan with the petitioner’s consent after his wife’s death because the petitioner abandoned the child and that respondents assumed responsibility for raising the child.

Trial Court Proceedings

The petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the RTC in Malolos to recover custody of Azilimson. After trial, the RTC dismissed the habeas corpus petition by decision dated February 19, 2007, concluding that it was in the best interest of the child to remain with the respondents in Bulacan. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on April 26, 2007, the court ruling that the motion had been filed out of time and that there were no cogent reasons to disturb the judgment. The RTC issued a certificate of finality. The petitioner then filed a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 in the RTC, asserting that his motion for reconsideration had been timely filed and supporting that claim with a postal certification; the RTC denied the petition for relief from judgment on September 26, 2007, characterizing it as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

The petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 in the Court of Appeals alleging extrinsic fraud and denial of due process. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition by resolution dated March 10, 2011, finding that the petition failed to comply with the conditions prescribed in Section 1 and Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. The CA further noted infirmities such as an illegible certified true copy of the assailed February 19, 2007 order and the petitioner’s failure to indicate material dates of receipt of pertinent orders. The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on June 21, 2011.

Issues Presented

The petitioner framed four issues: whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment on technical grounds without addressing the merits; whether the RTC order of February 19, 2007 should be annulled under Rule 47 on grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process; whether the trial court erred in concluding that the petitioner abandoned his wife and son, rendering him unfit for custody; and whether the trial court correctly awarded custody to the maternal grandmother, respondent Carmelita, in violation of Article 212 of the Family Code.

Parties' Contentions

The petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals improperly dismissed his petition for annulment on purely technical grounds and that the RTC decision of February 19, 2007 should be annulled for extrinsic fraud and denial of due process. The respondents maintained that the CA dismissal was proper, that the RTC denial of relief from judgment was grounded on law and evidence oriented toward the child’s best interest, and that the RTC’s disposition of custody was justified.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ resolutions. The Court declined to undertake a thorough factual review of the third and fourth issues concerning abandonment and the awarding of custody because such matters required a trier of facts and this mode of appeal was limited to questions of law. The Court sustained the CA’s dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment and ordered the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an extraordinary equitable remedy available only when ordinary remedies are wanting and the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. The remedy is exceptional and is not to be used as a substitute for a litigant’s failure to timely avail of ordinary remedies. The Court relied on its prior pronouncements, including Republic v. De Castro, G.R. No. 189724, February 7, 2011, 641 SCRA 584, and Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161122, September 24, 2012, to emphasize the strict compliance required by Section 1 and Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. The Court held that because the petitioner had already invoke

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms