Case Summary (G.R. No. 210636)
Procedural History and Facts
The respondent filed a verified petition for the writ of habeas corpus before RTC-Caloocan seeking custody of her biological daughter, Criselda, who was in the custody of petitioner. Respondent alleged three possible addresses for the petitioner, all within the National Capital Region, including an office in Quezon City and residences in Caloocan City. The RTC-Caloocan issued a writ directing the petitioner to produce the minor. Attempts at personal service by the Sheriff within Caloocan failed; however, copies of court processes were left at the petitioner’s Caloocan residence as witnessed by officials. Petitioner did not appear at hearings and instead filed a Petition for Guardianship over the child before RTC-Quezon City, which was later dismissed due to litis pendentia given the ongoing habeas corpus case. Subsequently, the RTC-Caloocan issued an alias writ which was personally served on the petitioner in Quezon City during a separate criminal investigation for kidnapping. Petitioner moved to quash the writ and dismiss the habeas corpus petition, contending lack of jurisdiction due to purported improper service.
Issue for Resolution
The central issues are whether RTC-Caloocan had jurisdiction to hear and decide the habeas corpus petition concerning a minor residing in Quezon City and whether the court validly acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner and the minor through service of the writ outside Caloocan City, specifically in Quezon City.
Trial Court’s Ruling
The RTC-Caloocan denied the petitioner’s motion to quash the writ and dismiss the habeas corpus case, ruling that a writ of habeas corpus serves a role akin to a summons and that jurisdiction over the person is acquired upon proper service of the writ. The court held that personal service need not occur exclusively at a specified residence but may be done wherever the person may be found. Since the Sheriff personally served the writ in Quezon City, the court concluded it had valid jurisdiction over the petitioner’s person and the minor involved.
Court of Appeals’ Decision
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC-Caloocan, dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner. It held that jurisdiction was properly vested in RTC-Caloocan due to the territorial extent of the judicial region. The CA relied on the certification from barangay authorities and a medical certificate indicating the petitioner’s residence within Caloocan City, supporting venue appropriateness. The CA also emphasized that service of summons is not required in habeas corpus proceedings under Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC. The petitioner’s reconsideration motion was denied.
Applicable Legal Provisions on Jurisdiction and Venue
Section 20 of Administrative Matter No. 03-04-04-SC prescribes that a petition for writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court, enforceable within its judicial region. In the absence of a Family Court or its presiding judge, the regular courts may entertain the petition, referring it to the Family Court upon the latter’s return. The writ may be enforced anywhere in the judicial region to which the court belongs and may be made returnable to any regular or Family Court within that region for hearing and decision.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 establishes the National Capital Judicial Region, comprising Manila, Quezon City, Caloocan City, and other municipalities. This means that any RTC within this region, such as Caloocan City, has competence over petitions enforceable throughout the region, including Quezon City.
Jurisdiction of RTC-Caloocan
The Supreme Court held that RTC-Caloocan properly exercised jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition since the writ’s enforceability extends to the entire judicial region of the National Capital Region, which includes Quezon City and Caloocan City. The location of the minor’s actual residence or the petitioner’s address within that region does not affect jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the provisions cited by petitioner, particularly Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC on the filing venue for custody petitions, do not apply to habeas corpus petitions, which are governed by Section 20.
Service of the Writ and Jurisdiction Over the Pe
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 210636)
Nature of the Case
- The case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, accompanied by a prayer for injunctive relief.
- The petitioner, Ma. Hazelina A. Tujan-Militante, questions the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 130, Caloocan City, over a special civil action for habeas corpus.
- The habeas corpus petition concerns the custody of the minor Criselda M. Cada, a biological daughter of respondent Raquel M. Cada-Deapera, who resides in Quezon City.
- The petitioner seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated May 17, 2013, and its Resolution dated December 27, 2013.
Factual Background
- On March 24, 2011, respondent filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus before RTC-Caloocan, docketed as Special Civil Action Case No. C-4344, demanding possession of her daughter Criselda from petitioner.
- Respondent cited three known addresses of petitioner for service: two residences in Caloocan City and Quezon City, and her office in Quezon City.
- On March 25, 2011, RTC-Caloocan issued the writ of habeas corpus, requiring petitioner to produce Criselda on March 28, 2011.
- The Sheriff failed to personally serve petitioner with the petition and writ at the cited addresses but left copies at petitioner’s Caloocan residence on March 29, 2011.
- Petitioner did not appear at scheduled hearings before RTC-Caloocan.
- On March 31, 2011, petitioner filed a petition for guardianship over Criselda before RTC-Quezon City, which respondent moved to dismiss on grounds of litis pendentia.
- On July 12, 2011, RTC-Quezon City dismissed the guardianship petition due to pendency of the habeas corpus petition in RTC-Caloocan.
- On August 4, 2011, respondent moved for an alias writ of habeas corpus, which RTC-Caloocan granted on August 8, 2011, directing service upon petitioner at her office during a criminal investigation for kidnapping.
- Petitioner, upon being served, filed a special appearance to quash the writ and dismiss the habeas corpus petition, contending lack of personal service and thus lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
- On January 20, 2012, RTC-Caloocan denied pe