G.R. No. 210487 - Reyes vs. Elquiero

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210487)

Factual Background

Melysinda D. Reyes was the biological aunt and actual custodian of the minor child Irish Elquiero, who was the biological daughter of Melysinda’s brother and the legally adopted daughter of Rex R. Elquiero. Maria Salome R. Elquiero was the mother of Rex and claimed custodial rights upon Rex’s death in February 2009. After Rex’s death, Irish remained in the care of Melysinda, and a custody dispute ensued with competing petitions and proceedings in different forums.

Habeas Corpus Petition and RTC Proceedings

Maria Salome R. Elquiero filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of Appeals on March 26, 2010, which was granted by the CA on March 31, 2010 and made returnable to the RTC of San Pablo City; the writ sought the production of Irish and an explanation why she should not be set at liberty. The RTC of San Pablo conducted hearings, received a return from the NBI, and issued an order confirming the parties’ agreement to vest temporary custody with Melysinda while the habeas corpus proceeding was pending. The RTC later ordered parties to submit pre-trial pleadings; Salome moved for reconsideration arguing that habeas corpus is summary, but the RTC denied the motion.

Muntinlupa Custody Petition and RTC Disposition

Salome filed a separate custody petition before Branch 207, RTC, Muntinlupa City, initiated June 15, 2010, asserting her right as the mother of the adoptive father and alleging deprivation of custody by Melysinda. Melysinda answered, asserted forum shopping and lack of legal relationship, and moved to dismiss. The Muntinlupa RTC granted the motion to dismiss on January 11, 2011 for lack of legal right by Salome, denied reconsideration on April 12, 2011, and the decision was appealed to the CA.

Court of Appeals Rulings in the Two Actions

The CA rendered conflicting rulings. The CA Sixteenth Division, in CA-G.R. CV No. 97013, affirmed the Muntinlupa RTC decision on September 25, 2012, found Salome guilty of forum shopping, and ordered her and counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned. The CA Ninth Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 115366, however, treated the habeas corpus petition as a regular summary habeas corpus under Rule 102, held that the RTC erred in ordering pre-trial in a summary habeas corpus proceeding, and concluded that Salome was not guilty of forum shopping.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition to the Supreme Court raised three principal issues: whether the habeas corpus proceeding was a regular summary habeas corpus under Rule 102 or a special custody-related habeas corpus governed by A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC; whether Salome committed forum shopping; and whether Salome had a valid cause of action to seek custody of Irish.

Nature of Habeas Corpus in Custody Controversies

The Court held that a petition for writ of habeas corpus involving custody of a minor is a special form of custody proceeding under A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, not merely a summary habeas corpus under Rule 102. The Court relied on the Rule’s Section 20, which permits filing in appellate courts and provides for return to a Family Court or regular court within the judicial region for hearing and determination on the merits, and on Section 9, which makes pre-trial mandatory in custody-related habeas corpus proceedings. Accordingly, the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in ordering pre-trial and requiring pre-trial briefs, and the CA Ninth Division erred in treating the matter exclusively as a Rule 102 proceeding.

Forum Shopping: Legal Standards and Application

The Court reviewed the doctrine against forum shopping as expounded in Fontana Development Corp. v. Vukasinovic, Dy v. Mandy Commodities, Inc., and Villamor & Victolero Construction Co. v. Sogo Realty and Development Corp., and applied the litis pendentia test for identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for. The record showed three proceedings related to Irish — a habeas corpus petition, a guardianship proceeding, and a custody petition — initiated in different courts within a short timeframe, with disclosure of pendency from Salome’s representative. The Court found that Salome and her counsel engaged in willful and deliberate forum shopping by pursuing substantially identical reliefs in multiple fora. Under Rule 7, Section 5, Rules of Court, the Court concluded that where forum shopping was willful and deliberate all cases, including the first filed, must be dismissed with prejudice.

Standing and Right to Custody

The Court examined standing and legal entitlement to custody under Articles 214 and 216, Family Code, and pertinent jurisprudence, including Teotico v. Del Val Chan, which holds that adoption creates a legal relation only between adopter and adoptee and does not extend to the adopter’s collaterals. The Court concluded that Salome, as the mother of the adoptive father, lacked the legal relationship necessary to ground a claim to custody against an actual custodian where the substitute parental authority order of preference favored the surviving grandparent or the actual custodian. Conversely, Melysinda, as the actual and continuous custodian, fell within the persons entitled to exercise substitute parental authority and had lawful standing and basis to retain custody.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition for review, reversed and set aside the April 26, 2012 Decision and December 12, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115366, and dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 113286 and all

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 210487)

Parties and Posture

MELYSINDA D. REYES is the biological aunt and actual custodian of the minor child Irish Reyes Elquiero.
MARIA SALOME R. ELQUIERO, represented by attorney-in-fact Daisy Elquiero-Benavidez, is the mother of the deceased adoptive father and sought custody of Irish.
The petition assails the April 26, 2012 Decision and December 12, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 115366 by way of a Rule 45 petition.
The controversy arose after the death of Irish’s adoptive father, Rex R. Elquiero, and competing custody claims by Melysinda and Salome.

Key Factual Allegations

Rex died in February 2009 after which Irish remained in the custody of Melysinda.
Salome alleged that Melysinda prevented her and her daughters from contacting Irish and thus filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Court of Appeals initially granted the habeas corpus petition and directed issuance of a writ returnable to the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City.
The San Pablo RTC ordered temporary custody of Irish to Melysinda while proceedings were pending.
Salome subsequently filed multiple proceedings relating to Irish, including a guardianship petition, a habeas corpus petition, and a custody petition docketed in Muntinlupa.

Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Salome filed a habeas corpus petition initially with the Court of Appeals that was returned to the San Pablo RTC for hearing and disposition.
The San Pablo RTC required the parties to submit pre-trial briefs and other pre-trial preparations in the habeas corpus proceeding.
The Court of Appeals Ninth Division treated the habeas corpus petition as a Rule 102 proceeding in its original sense, held that habeas corpus is summary in nature, and reversed the RTC orders requiring pre-trial.
The Ninth Division further held that Salome was not guilty of forum shopping in filing the habeas corpus petition.

Muntinlupa Custody Case

Salome filed a separate custody petition in the Muntinlupa RTC alleging entitlement to Irish as a relative of the adoptive father.
The Muntinlupa RTC granted Melysinda’s motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action and lack of legal relationship between Salome and Irish.
The Court of Appeals Sixteenth Division affirmed the Muntinlupa RTC ruling and found that Salome committed multiple acts of forum shopping by pursuing substantially the same relief in different courts.
The Sixteenth Division directed Salome, her attorney, and her representative to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for forum shopping.

Rulings Below

The Court of Appeals Ninth Division partially granted Salome’s petition and ordered the San Pablo RTC to treat the habeas corpus proceeding as a summary habeas corpus under Rule 102.
The Court of Appeals Sixteenth Division denied Salome’s appeal in the Muntinlupa custody case and found Salome guilty of multiple acts of forum shopping.
The two Court of Appeals divisions thus rendered divergent conclusions on the nature of the habeas corpus proceeding and the propriety of Salome’s multiple filings.

Issues Presented

Whether the San Pablo RTC gravely abused its discretion by issuing orders dated April 16, 2010 and July 5, 2010 requiring pre-trial procedures in the habeas corpus proceeding.
Whether Salome