G.R. No. 268979 - Empuerto vs. Cabrillos

Case Summary (G.R. No. 268979)

Factual Background

The child, Yuno, was born to SHEENA OLPOC CABRILLOS on February 26, 2013 and was acknowledged by JEFFREY ROSACAY EMPUERTO as his biological father. The parents separated in 2017 when respondent left with the child to Cotabato City to live with her parents. Jeffrey maintained regular communication with Yuno and had custodial periods during holidays and vacations while the child resided primarily with the Empuerto household in Davao City. In March 2020 Jeffrey brought Yuno to Davao for vacation; the COVID-19 lockdown extended the stay. Respondent repeatedly sought return of the child; in July and August 2020 efforts with police and social workers failed as the child refused to leave with his mother.

Trial Court Proceedings

Respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus causing the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 Family Court, Davao City, to issue a writ on May 3, 2021 requiring appearance and production of Yuno on May 5, 2021. At the May 5, 2021 return hearing the presiding judge conducted a preliminary conference with Jeffrey and respondent in chambers, during which they reached a compromise agreement on custody. The trial court issued an order on May 5, 2021 incorporating the agreement, directed turnover of custody to the mother after classes in July 2021, ordered implementation details for visitation and vacations, approved the compromise as not contrary to law and terminated the special proceedings. Petitioners moved for reconsideration and the trial court denied it on June 11, 2021, reiterating closure due to the compromise.

Sheriff’s Return and Subsequent Events

The sheriff reported service of the May 5, 2021 order in July 2021 accompanied by social workers and by Jeffrey, and that the child refused to accompany his mother. The Empuertos thereafter filed an Urgent Verified Motion for Preliminary Restraints in the Court of Appeals seeking to stay implementation and to remand for a full-blown trial.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The Court of Appeals denied preliminary restraints in its September 27, 2022 Resolution for failure by the Empuertos to show a clear, unmistakable custodial right. In its October 18, 2022 Decision the Court of Appeals partly granted the appeal by setting aside the trial court’s closure and termination orders but treating the May 5, 2021 terms as a provisional custody award to be immediately implemented pendente lite while remanding the case for a full-blown trial on custody. The court relied on allegations that a full reception of evidence was necessary to determine the mother’s fitness and to address claims of prior abuse. The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration in its July 19, 2023 Resolution but upheld the validity of the compromise agreement while holding Section 13 inapplicable to respondent’s habeas petition.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

The Empuertos argued that custody does not automatically vest in the mother simply because the child is illegitimate and that Jeffrey, as biological father and actual custodian, possessed a clear and unmistakable right to custody; they urged issuance of a TRO to prevent trauma and to preserve the child’s welfare and insisted a full-blown trial was necessary. Respondent contended that it was in Yuno’s best interest to be with her and that the Empuertos unduly influenced Jeffrey and resisted the mother’s custodial claim for selfish motives; she urged denial of the petition and that the case proceed to trial on the merits. The parties also disputed procedural acts of the trial court and implementation of the Court of Appeals decision.

Issues Presented

The primary legal question presented was whether the Court of Appeals erred in deeming the parties’ compromise in the May 5, 2021 Order as a provisional award of custody to be implemented immediately while awaiting judgment after a full-blown trial. Subsidiarily, the questions included whether the trial court complied with Section 13 of the Rule on Custody of Minors by issuing any provisional custody order without affording the other parties opportunity to file an answer, and whether the disposition properly respected the child’s best interests as required by Section 14 of the Rule.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering immediate implementation of the May 5, 2021 Order as a provisional custody award because the trial court failed to comply with Section 13 of the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors which requires that a provisional order awarding custody may only be issued after an answer has been filed or after expiration of the period to file it. The Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals’ October 18, 2022 Decision and July 19, 2023 Resolution, and remanded the case to the trial court for proper determination of rightful custody with dispatch.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court grounded its decision on the function of the writ of habeas corpus in custody cases as articulated in Sombong v. Court of Appeals, namely that the writ serves to determine rightful custody and that the Family Court must decide custody upon return of the writ. The Court reiterated that Section 13 permits issuance of a provisional custody order only after an answer has been filed or the period to file an answer has expired, citing Recto v. Judge Trocino for the rule that a court is not authorized to issue provisional custody until that condition is met. The Court found that petitioners had not been duly served with summons and had not had opportunity to file an answer before the May 5, 2021 order and that the trial court prematurely closed the proceedings based on the parties’ compromise. The Court reiterated authorities, including Lacson v. San Jose-Lacson, Laxamana v. Laxamana, and Bagtas v. Judge Santos, which caution against resolving custody solely on parental agreement without reception of evide

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 268979)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The petitioners are Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto and Leonido and Rosalyn Empuerto, and the respondent is Sheena Olpoc Cabrillos.
The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals' September 27, 2022 Resolution, October 18, 2022 Decision, and July 19, 2023 Resolution.
The petition sought among other reliefs the issuance of a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the Regional Trial Court's May 5, 2021 Order.
The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Branch 12 Family Court, Regional Trial Court, Davao City from proceeding with Special Proceedings Case No. R-DVO-21-2373-SP pending resolution of the Petition.

Key Factual Allegations

The minor is Yuno Hanzo Cabrillos Empuerto, born February 26, 2013, whom Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto acknowledged as his son.
The parents separated in 2017 and the child resided with respondent in Cotabato City while visiting the father and petitioners in Davao City for holidays and vacations.
In March 2020 the child went to Davao City and remained there during the COVID-19 lockdown, and respondent's attempts to retrieve the child in July and August 2020 were unsuccessful.
The parties entered into a barangay agreement to transfer custody in April 2021, which the petitioners allege was not complied with, prompting respondent to file for a writ of habeas corpus in April 2021.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 Family Court, Davao City issued a writ of habeas corpus on May 3, 2021 requiring the petitioners to bring the child to court on May 5, 2021.
During the May 5, 2021 hearing the judge held a preliminary conference with respondent and Jeffrey, and the parties executed a compromise agreement that was incorporated into the court's May 5, 2021 Order.
The May 5, 2021 Order approved the parties' agreement on custody arrangements, directed turnover of custody to the mother in July 2021, authorized sheriff assistance, and declared the case closed and terminated.
The petitioners moved for reconsideration requesting a full-blown trial, and the trial court denied the motion in its June 11, 2021 Order on the ground that the case had been resolved by the compromise agreement.

Court of Appeals Rulings

In its September 27, 2022 Resolution the Court of Appeals denied the petitioners' Urgent Verified Motion for Preliminary Restraints for failure to establish a clear and unmistakable right of custody.
In its October 18, 2022 Decision the Court of Appeals partly granted the appeal, reversed and set aside the trial court's closure and termination of the case, and deemed the May 5, 2021 Order's custody terms provisional and immediately implementable while directing the trial court to proceed with a full-blown hearing.
In its July 19, 2023 Resolution the Court of Appeals denied partial reconsideration, upheld the validity of the compromise agreement between Jeffrey and respondent, and held Section 13 of the Rule on Custody of Minors inapplicable to the habeas petition filed by respondent.

Issues Presented

The principal issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in deeming the parties' compromise agreement in the May 5, 2021 Order as a provisional award of custody and in directing its immediate implementation while a full-blown trial remained pending.
A related issue was whether the trial court correctly approved the compromise agreement and terminated the habeas corpus proceedings without affording petitioners the opportunity to file an answer and without conducting a trial for reception of evidence.

Parties' Contentions

The petitioners contended that custody did not automatically vest in respondent despite the child's illegitimacy, that Jeffrey and the petitioners had a clear and unmistakable right to custody as actual custodians, and that allegations of respondent's prior violence warranted a full-blown trial and injunctive relief.
Respondent contended that it was in the child's best interest to be with her, that the petitioners pressured the judge and influenced Jeffrey, and that the compromise agreement should be implemented rather than subjected immediately to trial.

Applicable Law and Standards

The relevant rule is the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC), as promulgated on April 22, 2003.
Section 13 of the Rule provides that a provisional order awarding custody may be issued only after an answer has been filed or after the period to file it has expired.
Section 14 of the Rule enumerates factors governing custody determinations, including the best interests of the minor, health and safety, history of abuse, and the preference of a minor over seven years of age and of sufficient discernment.
The jurisprudential requisites for habeas relief in custody cases, as summarized in Sombong v. Court of Appeals, require that the petitioner have the right of custody, that custody is being withheld, and that custody with the petitioner is in the best interest of the minor.

Supreme Court Reasoning

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in treating the May 5, 2021 compromise terms as a provisional custody order because the trial court did not comply with Section 13 of the Rule by issuing custody terms before petitioners were served and before they had an opportunity to file an answer.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a compromise agreement between parents resolving custody issues is disfavored when it precludes a trial to determine the child's best interest, citing Lacson v. San Jose-Lacson, Laxamana v. Laxamana, and Bagtas v. Judge