Case Summary (G.R. No. 268979)
Factual Background
Sheena gave birth to Yuno in 2013; Jeffrey acknowledged paternity. The parents separated in 2017 when Sheena left with Yuno to Cotabato City while Jeffrey and Yuno maintained regular contact and holiday stays in Davao City with Jeffrey’s parents (Spouses Empuerto). In March 2020 Jeffrey brought Yuno to Davao for summer; COVID-19 lockdown extended the stay. Sheena’s requests for return were refused in July and August 2020; barangay mediation resulted in an agreement that custody would be turned over in April 2021, but Jeffrey did not comply.
Procedural History up to the Trial Court Order
Sheena filed a police blotter and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Regional Trial Court issued a writ on May 3, 2021 and required the Empuertos to bring Yuno on May 5, 2021. At the May 5, 2021 hearing the judge held a preliminary conference in chambers with Jeffrey and Sheena; they entered into a compromise agreement on custody terms, which the court approved by order and declared the special proceedings closed and terminated. The Empuertos moved for reconsideration requesting a full-blown trial; the trial court denied reconsideration on June 11, 2021. The sheriff attempted turnover of custody on July 28, 2021, but Yuno refused to go with his mother.
Terms of the May 5, 2021 Order (Compromise Agreement)
The court-approved compromise provided, among other terms: turnover of custody to the mother after the child’s classes in July 2021; specified frequency of communication while custody shifted; mother’s duty to protect the child from abuse; schedule for long vacations and Christmas/New Year custody; preservation of the child’s personal belongings; and a directive for the sheriff, aided by social workers and law enforcement as needed, to effect the turnover. The court approved the agreement as not contrary to law and terminated the case.
Court of Appeals’ Actions and Reasoning
The Empuertos sought preliminary restraints and appealed. The Court of Appeals initially denied preliminary restraints (Resolution, Sept. 27, 2022) for lack of showing of a clear, unmistakable right. In its October 18, 2022 Decision the Court of Appeals partly granted the appeal: it reversed and set aside the trial court orders insofar as they closed and terminated the case, deemed the May 5, 2021 agreement a provisional award of custody to be implemented immediately, and directed the trial court to proceed with a full-blown hearing. The Court of Appeals found that the agreement did not finally resolve custody because the Empuertos persistently demanded trial and there were allegations (including abuse) that required evidence and a proper adjudication. A July 19, 2023 Court of Appeals resolution denied the Empuertos’ motion for partial reconsideration and upheld the validity of the compromise agreement while holding Section 13 of the custody rule inapplicable to Sheena’s habeas petition.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating the May 5, 2021 compromise agreement as a provisional custody order that should be implemented immediately while a full-blown trial proceeded. Ancillary assertions by the Empuertos included that custody should not automatically vest in the mother simply because the child is illegitimate; that Jeffrey as biological father and actual custodian had a clear and unmistakable right to custody; and that the mother’s alleged history of violence warranted interim protection and attachment of custody to the petitioners.
Legal Framework Applied by the Supreme Court
The Court applied the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC), longstanding habeas corpus jurisprudence (including Sombong), and relevant authorities (Recto v. Judge Trocino; Lacson; Laxamana; Bagtas; Spouses Gabun v. Stolk, Sr.; and other cited precedents). Sombong articulates the requisites for a custody habeas corpus: (1) petitioner has the right of custody; (2) rightful custody is being withheld by the respondent; and (3) it is in the best interest of the minor that custody be with the petitioner. Section 13 of the custody rule authorizes issuance of a provisional custody order only after an answer has been filed or the period to file an answer has expired. Section 14 enumerates the factors to be considered in awarding custody, with primacy to the best interests and welfare of the minor.
Supreme Court’s Analysis Regarding Section 13 Compliance
The Supreme Court found that the trial court’s May 5, 2021 Order did not comply with Section 13 because petitioners (the Empuertos) were not duly served with summons and did not have the opportunity to file an answer prior to the issuance and implementation of the order. The Court stressed that a court is not authorized to issue a provisional custody order until after an answer is filed or its filing period has expired. Because the petitioners lacked the opportunity to respond, the May 5 order could not properly be regarded as a valid provisional custody award under Section 13.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Compromise Agreements and Need for Trial
The Court reiterated established doctrine that custody determinations cannot rest solely on parents’ mutual agreements and that courts, not parental whims, must determine custody in the child’s best interest. The Court cited Lacson, Laxamana, Bagtas, and related authorities to emphasize that the absence of trial and reception of evidence prevents a proper evaluation of parental fitness and the conditions most congenial to the child’s physical, ps
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 268979)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) filed before the Supreme Court assails the Court of Appeals' September 27, 2022 Resolution, October 18, 2022 Decision, and July 19, 2023 Resolution, and prays for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order against execution of the Regional Trial Court's May 5, 2021 Order. (Rollo, pp. 10–33; CA decisions/resolutions cited.)
- The primary relief sought by petitioners (Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto and spouses Leonido and Rosalyn Empuerto) was restraint of the trial court and prevention of implementation of the May 5, 2021 Order, and remand for a full-blown trial to determine rightful custody of the minor, Yuno Hanzo Cabrillos Empuerto. (Rollo, pp. 153–163; CA docket references.)
- The Supreme Court, upon review, granted the Petition, 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 custody pendente lite to remain with the petitioners (actual custodians). (Supreme Court decision, final disposition paragraph.)
Key Facts
- On February 26, 2013, Sheena Olpoc Cabrillos gave birth to Yuno Hanzo Cabrillos Empuerto. (Rollo, p. 298.)
- Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto acknowledged paternity and lived with Sheena and his parents (Spouses Empuerto) in Davao City. (Rollo.)
- In or about 2017, Sheena and Jeffrey separated; Sheena left with Yuno to live with her parents in Cotabato City and enrolled Yuno in a local elementary school. (Rollo.)
- Despite separation and distance, Jeffrey maintained regular communication and had Yuno stay with him during holidays and vacations. (Rollo.)
- On March 13, 2020, Jeffrey brought Yuno to Davao City for summer vacation; Yuno’s stay was extended due to the COVID-19 lockdown. (Rollo.)
- After lockdown restrictions, Sheena requested return of Yuno; Jeffrey allegedly ignored the request. (Rollo.)
- On July 6, 2020, Sheena went to Davao City to fetch Yuno but the Empuertos refused to hand over the child. (Rollo.)
- On August 6, 2020, with police and a social worker, Sheena tried again; Yuno refused to go with her. (Rollo.)
- Sheena sought assistance from the Punong Barangay; parties agreed to a turnover arrangement at end of classes in April 2021, which Jeffrey did not follow through on in April 2021, prompting Sheena to file a police blotter and petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the trial court. (Rollo, p. 299.)
Trial Court Proceedings and the May 5, 2021 Order
- On May 3, 2021, the Regional Trial Court of Davao City issued a writ of habeas corpus requiring the Empuertos to appear and bring Yuno to court on May 5, 2021. (Rollo, pp. 51–52; p. 299.)
- On May 5, 2021, all parties and counsel appeared; only Jeffrey and Sheena were called for a preliminary conference inside the judge’s chamber. (Rollo, p. 299.)
- Jeffrey and Sheena agreed to certain custody terms in the preliminary conference; those terms were incorporated in the Regional Trial Court’s May 5, 2021 Order, which the court approved as not contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy, and declared the case closed and terminated. (Rollo, pp. 51–52.)
- Key terms of the May 5, 2021 Order included:
- Custody to be turned over to the mother after the child’s class in July 2021.
- During custody with either parent, constant communication to be maintained; after July, while the child is in mother’s custody, communication limited to once a week for one month to allow mother to establish relationship.
- Mother to take care and protect the child from any forms of abuse including members of her household.
- During long vacations (Christmas, Holy Week, summer), custody shall be with the father; for Christmas break up to December 30, 2021 custody with father, during New Year custody with mother.
- Mother shall ensure the personal belongings and toys of the child are used only by him.
- Sheriff directed to serve and effect turnover in July 2021 or after the child’s class, with assistance of social worker and law enforcement as needed; case closed and terminated. (Rollo, pp. 51–52.)
Service, Sheriff’s Return, and Immediate Post-Order Events
- Petitioners moved for reconsideration demanding a full-blown trial; the Regional Trial Court denied their motion in its June 11, 2021 Order, stating that custody had been determined by compromise agreement and the case was therefore resolved and terminated. (Rollo, pp. 75–76.)
- Sheriff Orlando Acosta’s Return and Report dated July 28, 2021: sheriff, together with Sheena and social workers, served the May 5, 2021 Order upon Jeffrey, and attempted turnover; Yuno refused to go with his mother despite Jeffrey’s cooperation. (Rollo, p. 602; related entries.)
- Petitioners filed an Urgent Verified Motion for Preliminary Restraints before the Court of Appeals seeking (1) restraint of execution of the trial court’s order pending appeal and (2) remand for full-blown trial. (Rollo, pp. 153–163.)
Court of Appeals Proceedings, Resolutions, and Decision
- September 27, 2022 Resolution (Court of Appeals) denied the prayer for preliminary injunction, citing petitioners’ failure to establish a clear, unmistakable right of custody over Yuno and material invasion of that right; declared the case submitted for decision and noted procedural filings/payments. (Rollo, pp. 292–295; cited text at p. 294.)
- October 18, 2022 Decision (Court of Appeals) partly granted the appeal: reversed and set aside the trial court’s closure/termination of the case insofar as it ordered closure, but deemed the terms of the May 5, 2021 agreement regarding custody as provisional and directed immediate implementation; further directed the trial court to proceed with hearing of the case upon notice of the Decision. (Rollo, pp. 297–305.)
- The Court of Appeals framed the sole issue as whether the trial court erred in declaring the custody case closed and terminated despite absence of full-blown trial. (Rollo, p. 304.)
- It found the May 5, 2021 agreement did not end the custody issue; parties (and Empuertos) persistently demanded full reception of evidence; allegations of physical abuse and prior incidents required proper trial opportunity for the mother to clear accusations. (Rollo, pp. 301–304.)
- Consequently, the CA deemed the May 5, 2021 Order a provisional order awarding custody to be implemented pendente lite while awaiting judgment after a full-blown trial. (Rollo, p. 304.)
- July 19, 2023 Resolution (Court of Appeals) denied the Empuertos’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration; upheld validity of compromise agreement and the CA’s view that Section 13 of the Rule on Custody of Minors was inapplicable to Sheena’s petition for habeas corpus. (Rollo, pp. 313–315.)
Petition to the Supreme Court, Temporary Restraining Order, and Comments
- Empuertos filed the present Petition to the Supreme Court on August 24, 2023, contending custody does not automatically vest in Sheena because Yuno is illegitimate, asserting Jeffrey’s clear and unmistakable right as biological father and actual custodian, and alleging Sheena previously exposed Yuno to violence; they sought TRO pending appeal. (Rollo, pp. 20–28.)
- The Regional Trial