Case Summary (G.R. No. 234660)
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (custody and welfare of children)
• Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, 1987) – Articles 176, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216
• Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC) – Sections 8, 14, 19
• Rules of Court – Rule 41 (appeal periods and fees), Rule 65 (certiorari), Rule 13 (service of orders)
Factual Background
• Respondent and the minor’s mother lived together abroad without marriage; mother died hours after childbirth in the Philippines.
• Petitioners, as the mother’s collateral grandparents, assumed physical custody.
• Respondent’s petition for writ of habeas corpus sought permanent custody; DNA test confirmed paternity at 99.9997%.
Trial Court Findings
• RTC Decision (April 22, 2014): Granted custody to respondent relying on Articles 212 and 213 (parental authority and custody).
• Motions for reconsideration and supplemental motion denied (November 4, 2014).
• Petitioners’ appeal dismissed (December 7, 2014) for nonpayment of docket and other fees within the prescribed period.
• Subsequent motions denied; RTC declared dismissal immutable (August 26, 2016; May 19, 2017).
Court of Appeals Resolution
• Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 dismissed (August 23, 2017; October 9, 2017) as time-barred (filed beyond 60 days from notice of order).
• CA upheld finality of the RTC decision and the 48-hour appeal rule for habeas corpus under Rule 41, Section 3.
Issue on Review
Did the CA commit reversible error in dismissing petitioners’ certiorari petition on procedural grounds, and did the RTC gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal and awarding custody based solely on paternity?
Procedural Rules on Appeal in Minor Custody Cases
• Rule on Custody of Minors, Section 19: 15-day appeal period from notice of denial of motion for reconsideration in minor custody cases.
• Rule 41, Section 3 (suppletory): 15 days for ordinary appeals; 48 hours for habeas corpus generally.
• Later enactment of the Rule on Custody of Minors amended the 48-hour rule where minors are involved.
Service and Perfection of Appeal
• Rule 13, Section 2: Service of orders must be made on counsel if a party is represented; service on a party alone is a nullity.
• Petitioners’ counsel received the November 4, 2014 order only on December 3; petitioners’ Notice of Appeal (Nov. 24) and payment of fees (Nov. 27) occurred within 15 days.
• The RTC’s dismissal of the appeal for nonpayment was a grave jurisdictional error.
Best Interest and Equitable Relief
• The best interest of the minor is the paramount consideration (1987 Constitution, Civil Code Article 363, Rule on Custody of Minors Section 14).
• The Court may relax procedural rules in life, liberty, or special circumstances to secure substantial justice.
• Parens patriae doctrine compels the State to protect vulnerable children.
Applicable Provi
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 234660)
Facts
- Winston Clark Stolk, Sr. (respondent) filed a Verified Petition for Habeas Corpus before RTC Branch 73, Olongapo City, seeking absolute and permanent custody of his infant son, Winston Clark Daen Stolk, Jr. (Winston).
- Winston was born July 22, 2007 in the Philippines to Catherine Alfonso Daen (deceased) and respondent, who cohabited in Florida without legal marriage.
- Catherine died hours after childbirth. Thereafter, petitioners—Magdalino and Carol Gabun (spouses), Nora A. Lopez, and Marcelino Alfonso—acted as Winston’s actual custodians and collateral grandparents.
- Respondent alleged petitioners prevented his access to Winston despite his fatherhood being reflected on the child’s birth certificate.
- The trial court ordered respondent to bear the cost of a DNA test, which yielded a 99.9997% probability of paternity.
Procedural History
- RTC Branch 73 issued a Decision (April 22, 2014) granting respondent custody based on parentage (Articles 212–213, Family Code).
- Petitioners moved for reconsideration and supplemental reconsideration, arguing:
• Articles 214 and 216 of the Family Code apply to illegitimate children.
• Respondent’s criminal record and fitness to parent.
• Winston’s preference and need for a DSWD case study (per Rule on Custody of Minors, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC). - RTC denied reconsideration (Nov. 4, 2014) and later dismissed petitioners’ appeal for nonpayment of docket and other fees within the reglementary period (Dec. 7, 2014).
- Petitioners’ motion to reinstate appeal was denied (Aug. 26, 2016; May 19, 2017).
- Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) (July 28, 2017), seeking to nullify the RTC Decision and orders, to compel a DSWD case study, to lift warrants, and to assume custody.
- CA dismissed the certiorari petition as time-barred (Aug. 23, 2017) and denied reconsideration (Oct. 9, 2017).
Issue Presented
- Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari on procedural grounds and in upholding the RTC’s dismissal of petitioners’ appeal, thereby violating petitioners’ right to a timely appeal and failing to consider Winston’s best interest.
RTC Decision
- Relied on DNA test, parentage report, and birth certificate to conclude respondent had right to custody and parental authority under Articles 212 and 213 of the Family Code.
- Disregarded respondent’s status as divorcee and deportee.
- Denied petitioners’ motions for reconsideration (Nov. 4, 2014) and refused to hold a DSWD case study.
- Declared its De