G.R. No. 268979 – JEFFREY ROSACAY EMPUERTO and LEONIDO AND ROSALYN EMPUERTO, petitioners, vs. SHEENA OLPOC CABRILLOS, respondent.

LEONEN, J.

Rule Synopsis

Upon the return of the writ of habeas corpus, the trial court must determine rightful custody of the child and may issue a provisional order awarding custody of a minor in compliance with Sections 13 and 14 of the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors (Rule).

Facts

In February 2013, Sheena Cabrillos (Sheena) gave birth to Yuno Cabrillos (Yuno). Jeffrey Empuerto (Jeffrey) acknowledged paternity of Yuno. In 2017, Sheena and Jeffrey broke up. Yuno lived with Sheena’s parents in Cotabato City. Jeffrey lived in Davao City.

In March 2020, Yuno went with Jeffrey for vacation which was extended due to the COVID-19 lockdown. When Sheena asked that Yuno be returned, Jeffrey and his parents (Empuertos) refused. Sheena attempted several more times to recover Yuno with the assistance of local police and barangay officers, and social workers but to no avail. Thus, Sheena filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

The RTC issued the writ and the parties appeared before the court. After preliminary conference with Sheena and Jeffrey, the RTC issued an order incorporating certain terms for Yuno’s custody agreed upon by them. The order declared the case closed and terminated in view of the approval of the compromise agreement.

The court officers, social workers and Sheena served the order to Jeffrey for him to turn over Yuno. However, Yuno refused to go with Sheena despite Jeffrey’s cooperation.

The Empuertos then filed a motion with the Court of Appeals (CA) for the issuance of a preliminary injunction to restrain the execution of RTC’s order, and for the remand of the case to the RTC for a full-blown trial. The CA partially granted the motion. It upheld the validity of the compromise agreement, and deemed the RTC order as merely a provisional order awarding custody, which must be immediately implemented while awaiting judgement after a full-blown trial. The CA also denied Empuertos’ motion for partial reconsideration.

Hence, the instant petition.

Issues

Did the CA err in deeming provisional and directing the implementation of the compromise agreement between Sheena and Jeffrey, while awaiting judgement after a full-blown trial?

Ruling and Discussion

Yes. The CA erred in deeming provisional and directing the implementation of the compromise agreement between Sheena and Jeffrey, while awaiting judgement after a full-blown trial.

A petition for habeas corpus in relation to custody of minors is prosecuted to determine who has rightful custody over the child, not merely to produce the child before the court. Hence, the Family Court shall decide the issue on custody of minors upon the return of the writ.

The Family Court may issue a provisional order awarding custody after an answer has been filed or after expiration of the period to file it, and can render judgment awarding custody of the minor to the proper party after trial. In other words, under Section 13 of the Rule, a provisional order awarding custody will only be issued after an answer has been filed or after expiration of the period for filing it.

Here, the Empuetors were not duly served with summons and were unable to file their answer. It appears that upon return of the writ, Sheena and Jeffery entered into a compromise agreement and the RTC already terminated the special proceedings. As Empuertos never had the chance to file their answer to Sheena’s petition, the CA erred in deeming the compromise terms RTC order to be a full-fledged provisional order awarding custody.

Moreover, a compromise agreement between parents as to a child’s custody is frowned upon by the Court. Without trial for reception of evidence, the court cannot properly evaluate whom the child’s rightful custody belongs to, after considering the child’s best interest. A trial should be conducted to determine the fitness of both Sheena and Jeffrey to assume custody of Yuno.

Further, the trial court must carefully consider the totality of the circumstances and grant rightful custody over a child upon concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor; (2) the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondents; and (3) it is in the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of the respondent. The factors enumerated in Section 14 of the Rule must be considered in resolving an award of custody of a child.

Here, the RTC failed to rule upon the presence or absence of these requisites, and merely granted custody based on the compromise agreement of the parents in its order.

dispositive

Petition granted. Decision and Resolution of the CA reversed and set aside. Case remanded to court of origin.