Case Summary (G.R. No. 210487)
Relevant Procedural History
• March 26, 2010: Salome files a petition for writ of habeas corpus before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 113286) seeking production of Irish and her release into Salome’s custody.
• April 8, 2010: RTC Branch 30, San Pablo City, conducts hearings and orders temporary custody with Melysinda.
• April 12–16 & July 9, 2010: RTC issues orders requiring pre-trial briefs in the habeas corpus proceeding; Salome’s motions for reconsideration are denied.
• April 26, 2012 & December 12, 2013: CA 9th Division reverses the RTC’s pre-trial orders, treating the habeas corpus petition as a summary proceeding under Rule 102 and exonerates Salome of forum shopping.
• June 15, 2010: Salome files a separate custody petition before RTC Branch 207, Muntinlupa City (Sp. Case No. 10-027). Melysinda moves to dismiss for pendency of the habeas corpus case and forum shopping.
• January 11 & April 12, 2011: Muntinlupa RTC grants the motion to dismiss; Salome’s reconsideration is denied.
• September 25, 2012: CA 16th Division (CA-G.R. CV No. 97013) affirms the dismissal, finds Salome guilty of forum shopping, and directs her and her counsel to show cause.
• September 2, 2020: Supreme Court resolves Melysinda’s Rule 45 petition assailing the CA 9th Division’s decision.
Issues Framed for Review
- Whether the habeas corpus petition is a summary proceeding under Rule 102 or a special ancillary custody remedy governed by the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors (A.M. 03-04-04-SC).
- Whether Salome’s successive filings (habeas corpus, guardianship, custody) amount to forum shopping.
- Whether Salome has a valid legal relationship that entitles her to seek custody of Irish.
Nature of Habeas Corpus in Child‐Custody Context
– Under Rule 102, a writ of habeas corpus ordinarily tests the legality of restraint.
– Jurisprudence (Sombong v. CA) establishes that, in custody disputes, the writ functions as an equitable proceeding to determine right of custody, with the child’s best interests as the paramount consideration.
– A.M. 03-04-04-SC § 20 confirms that a habeas corpus petition involving custody is to be treated as a full custody proceeding, enforceable regionally, and returnable for a merits hearing; § 9 mandates a pre-trial within 15 days after the answer, with mandatory pre-trial briefs.
Analysis of the CA 9th and 16th Divisions
• CA 9th Division: Treated the petition as a summary Rule 102 proceeding, held RTC erred in ordering pre-trial, and ruled Salome was not forum-shopping because the reliefs differed (production of the child vs. formal custody).
• CA 16th Division (Muntinlupa custody appeal): Found identity of parties, subject matter, and relief across the habeas corpus, custody, and guardianship petitions and held Salome guilty of forum shopping; affirmed RTC dismissal of the custody case.
Forum-Shopping Determination
– Forum shopping exists when a party files successive or concurrent actions based on the same facts, parties, and relief, risking contradictory judgments (Phil. Pharmawealth v. Pfizer; Fontana v. Vukasinovic).
– Salome filed three petitions (guardianship, habeas corpus, custody) within months, all imploring custody of Irish from the same respondent (Melysinda) on substantially identical factual allegations.
– Such multiplicity of suits was willful and deliberate; the Supreme Court adopts the CA 16th Division’s finding and holds that all cases—including t
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 210487)
Facts
- Petitioner Melysinda D. Reyes is the biological aunt of the minor Irish Elquiero.
- Irish is the biological daughter of Melysinda’s brother and the legally adopted daughter of Rex R. Elquiero.
- Rex, son of respondent Maria Salome R. Elquiero, died in February 2009 in the United States.
- After Rex’s death, Irish remained in Melysinda’s custody in San Pablo City, Laguna.
- Respondent Salome, through her attorney-in-fact Daisy Elquiero-Benavidez, claimed custody of Irish and filed multiple court actions.
Habeas Corpus Case Proceedings (CA-G.R. SP No. 113286)
- March 26, 2010: Salome petitions the Court of Appeals for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging Irish’s custody is being wrongfully withheld by Melysinda.
- CA Resolution (March 31, 2010): Grants the petition and issues a writ returnable to RTC Branch 30, San Pablo City.
- April 8, 2010: NBI investigator files return of the writ; RTC conducts hearings and grants temporary custody to Melysinda.
- April 12, 2010: Melysinda opposes the petition, arguing lack of Salome’s personality to sue, absence of custody deprivation, forum shopping, and ulterior motive.
- April 16, 2010: Salome fails to appear; RTC orders submission of pre-trial briefs or compromise agreement.
- July 9, 2010: RTC denies Salome’s motion for reconsideration of the pre-trial order.
- Salome appeals the April 16 and July 9 orders to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 115366).
Muntinlupa Custody Case Proceedings (Sp. Case No. 10-027 RTC Muntinlupa)
- June 15, 2010: Salome files a separate petition for custody of Irish before RTC Branch 207, Muntinlupa.
- Allegations in Salome’s petition: Irish’s legal adoption by Rex; Irish’s deprivation since March 29, 2009; Melysinda’s lack of legal right, employment, and undue influence.
- August 13, 2010: Melysinda answers, asserting no adoptive relationship extends to Salome, Irish’s bond with Melysinda, forum shopping, and Salome’s ulterior motive.
- August 24, 2010: Melysinda moves to dismiss on grounds of pendency of other proceedings, forum shopping, Salome’s lack of qualifications, and absence of emotional bond.
- January 11, 2011: RTC grants the motion to dismiss for lack of Salome’s legal standing.
- April 12, 2011: RTC denies Salome’s mot