Case Summary (G.R. No. 210487)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
- March 26, 2010: Salome filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 113286) with the Court of Appeals.
- April–July 2010: San Pablo RTC set proceedings and ordered pre-trial steps; Salome sought reconsideration.
- June 15/25, 2010: Salome filed a separate custody petition in RTC-Muntinlupa (Sp. Case No. 10-027).
- April 26, 2012 & December 12, 2013: Court of Appeals issued a Decision and Resolution (CA-G.R. SP No. 115366) reversing RTC orders and finding no forum shopping in the habeas corpus filing (9th Division); a separate CA 16th Division later found forum shopping in the Muntinlupa custody appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 97013).
- Supreme Court decision: review by certiorari under Rule 45.
Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990), together with statutory and rule-based authorities cited below.
Applicable Law and Authorities
- 1987 Constitution — general framework for administration of justice.
- Rule 102, Rules of Court — general habeas corpus provisions.
- A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors) — special rules governing custody-related habeas corpus petitions, including mandatory pre-trial.
- Family Code, Articles 214 and 216 — order of preference for substitute parental authority.
- Child and Youth Welfare Code — welfare of the child as paramount consideration.
- Jurisprudence cited in the record: Sombong (on habeas corpus in custody disputes), Teotico v. Del Val Chan (on scope of adoption), and authorities on forum shopping (Fontana Development Corp., Dy v. Mandy, Villamor & Victolero).
Factual Background (concise)
Rex Elquiero adopted Irish; Rex died in 2009 while in the United States. Irish had been living in the custody of her biological aunt, Melysinda, who claims she cared for Irish since infancy. Salome (Rex’s mother) alleged deprivation of access to Irish and sought relief via habeas corpus and later via a separate custody action; Salome’s representatives acknowledged the pendency of the habeas corpus petition when filing the Muntinlupa custody petition. A separate guardianship petition filed in San Pablo is also part of the procedural history.
The Habeas Corpus Proceeding and RTC Orders at Issue
Salome’s CA-level habeas corpus petition resulted in issuance of a writ returnable to the San Pablo RTC. The San Pablo RTC set hearings and issued orders requiring pre-trial briefs and presentation of the child; these procedural orders were challenged by Salome on the ground that habeas corpus is summary and not subject to mandatory pre-trial under A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC. The CA (9th Division) reversed the RTC’s requirement of pre-trial, treating the writ as a Rule 102 habeas corpus in its ordinary sense; the CA 16th Division, however, later found that the habeas corpus proceeding was ancillary to custody proceedings and that pre-trial requirements under the special custody rule applied.
RTC-Muntinlupa Custody Proceeding and its Disposition
Salome filed a separate custody petition in Muntinlupa RTC alleging kinship through adoption and deprivation of Irish’s custody. The Muntinlupa RTC granted Melysinda’s motion to dismiss for lack of a right to custody and for forum shopping; the CA (16th Division) affirmed, finding identity of parties, facts, and essential reliefs among the various cases and concluding that Salome engaged in multiple acts of forum shopping.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the San Pablo RTC committed grave abuse by ordering pre-trial steps in the habeas corpus custody proceeding (i.e., whether the proceeding should be governed by Rule 102 or by the special custody rule).
- Whether Salome committed forum shopping.
- Whether Salome had a valid cause of action to sue for custody of Irish.
Nature of Habeas Corpus in a Custody Context — Supreme Court Analysis
The Court recognizes two relevant principles: (a) a writ of habeas corpus under Rule 102 extends to cases where the “rightful custody of any person is withheld” and has long been used to resolve custody disputes; and (b) the Rule on Custody of Minors (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC) treats habeas corpus involving minors as a special form of custody proceeding with its own procedural rules. Section 20 of that Rule permits filing in appellate courts and contemplates that, upon return of the writ, the trial court shall decide custody on the merits; importantly, Section 9 mandates a pre-trial in custody-related habeas corpus proceedings and prescribes the filing of pre-trial briefs. Given that the petition was filed under the Rule on Custody of Minors as a custody-related habeas corpus, the special rule applies and the RTC properly required pre-trial procedures. The CA 9th Division’s characterization of the petition strictly as a general Rule 102 habeas corpus thus erred; pre-trial is mandatory in custody-focused habeas corpus proceedings, and the San Pablo RTC did not commit grave abuse in ordering pre-trial steps.
Forum Shopping — Supreme Court Analysis and Finding
Forum shopping is defined as pursuing multiple judicial remedies in different tribunals on substantially the same transactions and reliefs. The Court applies the Villamor & Victolero test for litis pendentia (identity of parties, identity of rights/reliefs, and potential res judicata effect). The record shows Salome filed (a) a habeas corpus petition returned to San Pablo RTC, (b) a custody petition in Muntinlupa RTC, and (c) a guardianship petition in San Pablo — all involving the same minor, same parties, same essential facts, and aimed at securing custody or custody-related relief. The Court rejects the 9th Division’s attempt to distinguish the reliefs on the basis that habeas corpus sought production of the child while the custody petition sought a judgment awarding custody. The Court emphasizes that a habeas corpus in relation to a minor is a special custody remedy and that the various filings amounted to multiple acts of forum shopping. Considering the timing (three months between filings), disclosure of the pendency of the habeas corpus petition when filing in Muntinlupa, and the multiplicity of similar actions in different venues, the Supreme Court finds the forum shopping was willful and deliberate. Under the Rules, willful and deliberate forum shopping requires dismissal of all cases, including the first one, with prejudice.
Standing and Right to Custody under the Family Code — Supreme Court Analysis
The Court distinguishes standing (capacity to sue) from the subst
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 210487)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assails the Court of Appeals (CA) April 26, 2012 Decision and December 12, 2013 Resolution in CA-G.R. No. 115366 that nullified two Regional Trial Court (RTC) orders in a habeas corpus proceeding relating to custody of a minor.
- The Supreme Court docketed the case as G.R. No. 210487 and rendered its Decision on September 2, 2020.
- The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the CA rulings, and ordered CA-G.R. SP No. 113286 and all related proceedings before RTC-Branch 30, San Pablo City, Laguna dismissed with prejudice.
Parties and Relationships
- Petitioner: Melysinda D. Reyes — biological aunt of the minor Irish Reyes Elquiero; actual and long-time custodian of Irish.
- Respondent: Maria Salome R. Elquiero — adoptive grandmother by reason of being the mother of Rex R. Elquiero (Irish’s adoptive father); represented by attorney-in-fact Daisy Elquiero-Benavidez.
- Deceased: Rex R. Elquiero — legally adopted father of Irish; son of Salome; died in February 2009 in the United States.
- Other individuals: Daisy E. Benavidez and Gilda E. Kelley — Salome’s daughters; Atty. Nelson H. Manalili — counsel who filed the Muntinlupa custody case for Salome.
Factual Background
- Irish is the biological daughter of Melysinda’s brother and the legally adopted daughter of Rex R. Elquiero.
- Melysinda, Rex, and Irish lived together in San Pedro, Laguna; Rex left for the United States in August 2007 and died in February 2009.
- After Rex’s death, Irish remained in Melysinda’s custody in San Pablo City.
- Salome alleged last contact with Irish occurred when her daughter Daisy visited on March 29, 2009; thereafter Salome and her daughters were allegedly prevented from contacting Irish by Melysinda.
- Disputes over custody arose between Melysinda (actual custodian and biological aunt) and Salome (adoptive grandmother).
Habeas Corpus Proceeding (CA-G.R. SP No. 113286) — Chronology and Core Allegations
- March 26, 2010: Salome filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 113286), praying that Melysinda and any person acting on her behalf produce the person of Irish and explain the alleged restraint.
- March 31, 2010: The CA granted the petition and directed issuance of a writ of habeas corpus returnable to the RTC of San Pablo City, observing competing claims: Salome claiming custody as adoptive grandmother/substitute parent, and Melysinda described as both sister of Irish’s biological father and as girlfriend of the deceased adoptive father.
- April 8, 2010: NBI filed a return of the writ; RTC-Branch 30, San Pablo City conducted hearings.
- RTC initially confirmed parties’ agreement to vest temporary custody of Irish with Melysinda while the case was pending.
- April 12, 2010: Melysinda filed Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus asserting, among other defenses, lack of personality of Salome to question custody, that Irish was not deprived of liberty, accusations of forum shopping, and that Salome’s motives were pecuniary in relation to Rex’s estate.
- April 16, 2010: Another hearing was conducted; Salome did not personally appear. Instead of requiring her appearance, RTC issued an order requiring submission of either a compromise agreement or pre-trial briefs.
- Salome moved for reconsideration arguing habeas corpus is summary and not subject to mandatory pre-trial; her motion was denied in an order she received (record also references July 9, 2010).
- Salome challenged the RTC orders to the CA (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 115366).
Muntinlupa Custody Case (Sp. Case No. 10-027) — Genesis and Pleadings
- June 15/25, 2010: Salome filed a separate petition for custody of Irish before Branch 207 of the Muntinlupa RTC (the record lists the initiation on June 15, 2010; filing date in the narrative is shown as June 25, 2010).
- In the Muntinlupa petition, Salome alleged: Rex was Irish’s legal adoptive father; Irish was nine years old at the time; Melysinda is Irish’s biological aunt; Melysinda and Rex had a romantic relationship and lived with Irish; Rex died February 17, 2009; Daisy last saw Irish on March 29, 2009; Salome and her daughters had been deprived of custody; Melysinda had no legal right to retain custody and lacked gainful employment and exerted undue influence.
- Melysinda’s Answer (Aug 13, 2010) denied legal relationship between Salome and Irish arising from adoption, asserted long-term custody since seven days after birth, accused Salome of forum shopping, and alleged Salome’s interest was in Rex’s property rather than the child.
- August 24, 2010: Melysinda filed Motion to Dismiss on grounds including pendency of the habeas corpus case, forum shopping, Salome’s lack of qualification, and absence of emotional/psychological bonds between Salome and Irish.
- January 11, 2011: Muntinlupa RTC granted Melysinda’s motion to dismiss, concluding Salome failed to establish a right to custody or legal relationship with Irish.
- April 12, 2011: Muntinlupa RTC denied Salome’s motion for reconsideration; Salome appealed to the CA (docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 97013).
Court of Appeals Rulings — Division Split and Reasoning
CA 16th Division (Muntinlupa appeal, CA-G.R. CV No. 97013):
- September 25, 2012 Decision denied Salome’s appeal; affirmed Muntinlupa RTC Orders dated January 11, 2011 and April 12, 2011.
- Found Salome guilty of multiple acts of forum shopping: the habeas corpus case, the guardianship case (Sp. Proc. Case No. SP-1768(09) filed in Branch 30 San Pablo City), and the Muntinlupa custody case involved the same parties, subject matter, and relief albeit differently styled.
- Held Salome had no cause of action because the legal relationship created by adoption is limited to the adopter and adoptee and does not extend to the adopter’s relatives.
- Directed Salome, her representative Daisy, and her lawyer Atty. Nelson H. Manalili to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for multiple acts of forum shopping; sternly warned them against similar offenses.
CA 9th Division (Habeas corpus petition, CA-G.R. SP No. 115366):
- Partially granted Salome’s petition and reversed the RTC orders which required party submission of pleadings preparatory to a pre-trial.
- Held the habeas corpus petition should be treated as a regular habeas corpus under Rule 102 because the writ issued by the CA could be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines; concluded that pre-trial was not mandatory for summary habeas