5/14/2016

G.R.No.162734

TodayisSaturday,May14,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.162734August29,2006
MARIE ANTONETTE ABIGAIL C. SALIENTES, ORLANDO B. SALIENTES, and ROSARIO C. SALIENTES,
Petitioners,
vs.
LORAN S.D. ABANILLA, HONORABLE JUDGE PEDRO SABUNDAYO, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH203,MUNTINLUPACITY,Respondents
DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:
TheinstantpetitionassailstheDecision 1dated November 10, 2003 of the Court ofAppeals in CAG.R. SP No.
75680, which dismissed the petition for certiorari against the orders of the Regional Trial Court in Special
Proceedings No. 03004. Likewise assailed is the Court ofAppeals Resolution 2dated March 19, 2004 denying
reconsideration.
Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows:
PrivaterespondentLoranS.D.AbanillaandpetitionerMarieAntonetteAbigailC.Salientesaretheparentsofthe
minorLorenzoEmmanuelS.Abanilla.TheylivedwithMarieAntonettesparents,petitionersOrlandoB.Salientes
andRosarioC.Salientes.Duetoinlawsproblems,privaterespondentsuggestedtohiswifethattheytransferto
their own house, but MarieAntonette refused. So, he alone left the house of the Salientes.Thereafter, he was
preventedfromseeinghisson.
Later,LoranS.D.Abanillainhispersonalcapacityandastherepresentativeofhisson,filedaPetitionforHabeas
Corpus and Custody, 3 docketed as Special Proceedings No. 03004 before the Regional Trial Court of
MuntinlupaCity.OnJanuary23,2003,thetrialcourtissuedthefollowingorder:
Upon verified Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by Petitioners, the Respondents MarieAntonetteAbigail C.
Salientes, Orlando B. Salientes and Rosario C. Salientes are hereby directed to produce and bring before this
Court the body of minor Lorenzo Emmanuel Salientes Abanilla on January 31, 2003 at 1:00 oclock in the
afternoonandtoshowcausewhythesaidchildshouldnotbedischargedfromrestraint.
LetthisWritbeservedbytheSherifforanyauthorizedrepresentativeofthisCourt,whoisdirectedtoimmediately
makeareturn.
SOORDERED.4
Petitionersmovedforreconsiderationwhichthecourtdenied.
Consequently,petitionersfiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCourtofAppeals,butthesamewasdismissedon
November10,2003.TheappellatecourtaffirmedtheFebruary24,2003Orderofthetrialcourtholdingthatits
January23,2003Orderdidnotawardthecustodyofthe2yearoldchildtoanyonebutwassimplythestandard
orderissuedfortheproductionofrestrainedpersons.Theappellatecourtheldthatthetrialcourtwasstillaboutto
conduct a full inquiry, in a summary proceeding, on the cause of the minors detention and the matter of his
custody.TheCourtofAppealsruledthus:
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.5
Petitionersmovedforreconsideration,whichwasdeniedonMarch19,2004.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162734_2006.html

1/4

5/14/2016

G.R.No.162734

Hence,petitionersinterposedthisappealbycertiorarianchoredonthefollowinggrounds:
1.TheCourtofAppealserredinnotpronouncingtherespondentjudgegravelyabusedhisdiscretion,amounting
to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing an order for the petitionermother to first show cause why her own
threeyearoldchildinhercustodyshouldnotbedischargedfromasocalled"restraint"despitenoevidenceatall
ofrestraintandnoevidenceofcompellingreasonsofmaternalunfitnesstodeprivethepetitionermotherofher
minor son of tender years. The assailed orders, resolutions and decisions of the lower court and the Court of
Appealsareclearlyvoid
2. The Court of Appeals erred in not pronouncing that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in
issuingawritofhabeascorpuswhichclearlyisnotwarrantedconsideringthatthereisnounlawfulrestraintbythe
motherandconsideringfurtherthatthelawpresumesthefitnessofthemother,therebynegatinganynotionof
suchmotherillegallyrestrainingorconfiningherveryownsonoftenderyears.Thepetitionisnotevensufficient
insubstancetowarrantthewrit.Theassailedordersareclearlyvoid.
3. Contrary to the Court of Appeals decision, the "Sombong vs. CA" case supports rather than negates the
positionofthepetitioners.
4.ContrarytotheCourtofAppealsdecision,summaryproceedingdoesviolencetothetenderyearsrule
5.TheCourtofAppealsfailedtoconsiderthattheprivaterespondentfailedtopresentprimafacieproofofany
compellingreasonoftheunfitnessofthepetitionermother
6.TheCourtofAppealsfailedtoseethattheNewRulesonCustodySUFFICESASREMEDY.6
Plainlyput,theissueis:DidtheCourtofAppealserrwhenitdismissedthepetitionforcertiorariagainstthetrial
courtsordersdatedJanuary23,2003andFebruary24,2003?
Petitioners contend that the order is contrary toArticle 213 7 of the Family Code, which provides that no child
undersevenyearsofageshallbeseparatedfromthemotherunlessthecourtfindscompellingreasonstoorder
otherwise. They maintain that herein respondent Loran had the burden of showing any compelling reason but
failedtopresentevenaprimafacieproofthereof.
Petitioners posit that even assuming that there were compelling reasons, the proper remedy for private
respondent was simply an action for custody, but not habeas corpus. Petitioners assert that habeas corpus is
unavailableagainstthemotherwho,underthelaw,hastherightofcustodyoftheminor.Theyinsisttherewasno
illegalorinvoluntaryrestraintoftheminorbyhisownmother.Therewasnoneedforthemothertoshowcause
andexplainthecustodyofherveryownchild.
Private respondent counters that petitioners argument based onArticle 213 of the Family Code applies only to
thesecondpartofhispetitionregardingthecustodyofhisson.Itdoesnotaddressthefirstpart,whichpertainsto
hisrightasthefathertoseehisson.Heassertsthatthewritofhabeascorpus is available against any person
whorestrainstheminorsrighttoseehisfatherandviceversa.Heaversthattheinstantpetitionismerelyfiledfor
delay,forhadpetitionersreallyintendedtobringthechildbeforethecourtinaccordancewiththenewruleson
custodyofminors,theywouldhavedonesoonthedatesspecifiedintheJanuary23,2003andtheFebruary24,
2003ordersofthetrialcourt.
Private respondent maintains that, under the law, he and petitioner MarieAntonette have shared custody and
parentalauthorityovertheirson.HeallegesthatattimeswhenpetitionerMarieAntonetteisoutofthecountryas
requiredofherjobasaninternationalflightstewardess,he,thefather,shouldhavecustodyoftheirsonandnot
thematernalgrandparents.
As correctly pointed out by the Court ofAppeals, the assailed January 23, 2003 Order of the trial court did not
grantcustodyoftheminortoanyofthepartiesbutmerelydirectedpetitionerstoproducetheminorincourtand
explain why they are restraining his liberty.The assailed order was an interlocutory order precedent to the trial
courtsfullinquiryintotheissueofcustody,whichwasstillpendingbeforeit.
UnderRule41,Section1 8oftheRulesofCourt,aninterlocutoryorderisnotappealablebuttheaggrievedparty
may file an appropriate special action under Rule 65. The aggrieved party must show that the court gravely
abused its discretion in issuing the interlocutory order. In the present case, it is incumbent upon petitioners to
showthatthetrialcourtgravelyabuseditsdiscretioninissuingtheorder.
Habeascorpus may be resorted to in cases where rightful custody is withheld from a person entitled thereto. 9
UnderArticle 211 10 of the Family Code, respondent Loran and petitioner MarieAntonette have joint parental
authority over their son and consequently joint custody. Further, although the couple is separated defacto, the
issueofcustodyhasyettobeadjudicatedbythecourt.Intheabsenceofajudicialgrantofcustodytooneparent,
bothparentsarestillentitledtothecustodyoftheirchild.Inthepresentcase,privaterespondentscauseofaction
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162734_2006.html

2/4

5/14/2016

G.R.No.162734

isthedeprivationofhisrighttoseehischildasallegedinhispetition. 11Hence,theremedyofhabeascorpusis
availabletohim.
In a petition for habeascorpus, the childs welfare is the supreme consideration. The Child and Youth Welfare
Code12unequivocallyprovidesthatinallquestionsregardingthecareandcustody,amongothers,ofthechild,
hiswelfareshallbetheparamountconsideration.13
Again,itbearsstressingthattheorderdidnotgrantcustodyoftheminortoanyofthepartiesbutmerelydirected
petitionerstoproducetheminorincourtandexplainwhyprivaterespondentispreventedfromseeinghischild.
ThisisinlinewiththedirectiveinSection914ofA.M.030404SC15thatwithinfifteendaysafterthefilingofthe
answer or the expiration of the period to file answer, the court shall issue an order requiring the respondent
(hereinpetitioners)topresenttheminorbeforethecourt.Thiswasexactlywhatthecourtdid.
Moreover,Article213oftheFamilyCodedealswiththejudicialadjudicationofcustodyandservesasaguideline
for the proper award of custody by the court. Petitioners can raise it as a counter argument for private
respondentspetitionforcustody.Butitisnotabasisforpreventingthefathertoseehisownchild.Nothinginthe
saidprovisiondisallowsafatherfromseeingorvisitinghischildundersevenyearsofage.
Insum,thetrialcourtdidnoterrinissuingtheordersdatedJanuary23,2003andFebruary24,2003.Hence,the
CourtofAppealsproperlydismissedthepetitionforcertiorariagainstthesaidordersofthetrialcourt.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decisiondated November 10, 2003 and the Resolutiondated March
19,2004oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.75680areAFFIRMED.Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 1115. Penned by Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola with Associate Justices Amelita G.

Tolentino,andEdgardoF.Sundiamconcurring.
2Id.at89.
3Id.at7380.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162734_2006.html

3/4

5/14/2016

G.R.No.162734

4Id.at1112.
5Id.at15.
6Id.at3435.
7 ART. 213. In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent

designatedbytheCourt.TheCourtshalltakeintoaccountallrelevantconsiderations,especiallythechoice
ofthechildoversevenyearsofage,unlesstheparentchosenisunfit.
No child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother unless the court finds compelling
reasonstoorderotherwise.
8SECTION1.Subjectofappeal....

Noappealmaybetakenfrom:
xxxx
(c)aninterlocutoryorder
xxxx
Inalloftheaboveinstanceswherethejudgmentorfinalorderisnotappealable,theaggrievedpartymay
fileanappropriatespecialcivilactionunderRule65.
9Rules of Court, Rule 102, Sec. 1. To what habeas corpus extends. Except as otherwise expressly

providedbylaw,thewritofhabeascorpusshallextendtoallcasesofillegalconfinementordetentionby
whichanypersonisdeprivedofhisliberty,orbywhichtherightfulcustodyofanypersoniswithheldfrom
thepersonentitledthereto.
10ART.211.The father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their

common children. In cases of disagreement, the fathers decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial
ordertothecontrary.
11Rollo,pp.7577.
12PresidentialDecreeNo.603,asamended.
13Id.,Article8.
14SEC.9.Noticeofmandatorypretrial.Withinfifteendaysafterthefilingoftheanswerortheexpiration

oftheperiodtofileanswer,thecourtshallissueanorder:(1)fixingadateforthepretrialconference(2)
directingthepartiestofileandservetheirrespectivepretrialbriefsinsuchmannerasshallensurereceipt
thereof by the adverse party at least three days before the date of pretrial and (3) requiring the
respondenttopresenttheminorbeforethecourt.[Emphasissupplied.]
15RulesonCustodyofMinorsandWritofHabeasCorpusinRelationtoCustodyofMinors.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_162734_2006.html

4/4