Cunanan, Erika Mariz S.

Title: Michelle Lana Brown-Araneta, for herself and representing her minor daughters, Arabella
Margarita B. Araneta and Avangelina Mykaela B. Araneta v. Juan Ignacio Araneta, G.R. No. 190814,
October 09, 2013
Topic: Writ of Habeas Corpus

The writ of habeas corpus is available, not only in cases of illegal confinement or detention by which
any person is deprived of his liberty, but also in cases involving the rightful custody over a minor.

FACTS:
Juan Ignacio and Michelle were married and had 2 children, Ara and Ava. After seven years, they
separated and their two children remained in Michelle’s custody.
Juan filed, pursuant to The Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody
of Minors, a Petition for Custody of his children with prayer for visitation rights with the Makati
Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Michelle and her mother, Glenda Santos, claiming that they have
completely barred him from seeing or getting in touch with his daughters despite repeated requests.
The process server attempted to serve summons upon both of them, but only Santos was served. In
Santos’ answer, she disclaimed knowledge of Michelle’s whereabouts and she raised the court’s
jurisdiction over Michelle and rattled off negative habits and traits of Juan.
After a visiting grant was granted to Juan later on, Michelle filed a Motion to Admit Answer and an
Answer with Affirmative Defences and with Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Issuance of Protection,
acknowledging that she heard about the delivery of summons, but she disregarded it because she claimed
she thought that it was improperly served upon her person.
The RTC of Makati, in a hearing for the issuance of TPO, the judge expressed her bent to maintain
jurisdiction over the Petition for Custody and her disinclination to issue the TPO. Juan was granted
visitation rights for one Saturday and Sunday because he was previously unable to see his children.
Subsequently, the RTC resolved to deny admission of Michelle’s answer to the Petition for Custody and
declared her in default. Michelle interposed to Withdraw Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Protective Order.
She initiated a Petition for Temporary and Permanent Protection Order before the RTC Muntinlupa. In
the verification portion of her petition for protection order, Michelle stated that there was a pending
petition for custody of their children in Makati.
The RTC of Muntinlupa granted Michelle’s prayer for a TPO which ordered Juan to stay away at a
specified distance from Michelle and the children and to desist from communicating with Michelle. Juan
filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition with Prayer to Lift TPO anchored on, among others, litis pendentia,
since RTC of Makati is competent to grant her Petition which constitutes forum shopping. The RTC
conceded the exclusionary effect of the RTC Makati assuming the jurisdiction on the issue of custody
first, so it partially granted the Motion to Dismiss and modified the protection order to exclude from its
coverage the orders issued by the RTC of Makati in the exercise of its jurisdiction on the pending custody
case.
Meanwhile, Michelle went to the Court of Appeals (CA) on certiorari. The CA partly ruled in favour of
Michelle and decided that RTC of Makati erred in not admitting her answer and holding her in default.
Juan also went to the CA on petition for certiorari, from the adverse orders of the RTC of Muntinlupa
and prayed to enjoin the RTC of Muntinlupa from further taking cognizance of Michelle’s protection
order petition since it will intrude upon the RTC of Makati’s disposition of the custody case. Michelle
opposed and sought the dismissal of the petition for certiorari on the ground that it is a prohibited
pleading under RA 9262.
The CA found Michelle guilty of forum shopping but also ruled that Juan’s petition for certiorari is a
prohibited pleading which renders it dismissible. Nevertheless, it ruled in favour of Juan, declaring void
the issuances made by the RTC of Muntinlupa. Michelle sought to set aside the decision of the CA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Michelle committed forum shopping

RULING:
Yes. The court ruled that Michelle committed forum shopping and pointed that even if she withdrew the
protection order in Makati Court, it is only after it was denied. Also, there is nothing in the decision of
the CA declaring that all issuances of the RTC of Makati were void for lack of jurisdiction over Michelle,
the court said that this posture was meant to deceive and mislead the court.
Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions involving the same parties for the same cause
of action either simultaneously or successively, on the suspension that one or the other court would come
out with a favourable disposition.
The test for determining whether there is forum shopping is where the elements of litis pendentia are
present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.
Applying the rules, Michelle committed forum shopping because, as a result or in anticipation of the
adverse ruling of the RTC of Makati, she sought the favourable opinion of the RTC of Muntinlupa. (1)
The cases have identical; (2) The rights asserted and reliefs prayed for are based on the same facts; and
(3) Elements of litis pendentia are present and any judgment rendered in the pending cases, regardless
of which party is successful, will amount to res judicata.
The evil to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals of
two separate and contradictory decisions, thereby causing confusion, is present in this case.
The petition for TPO filed by Michelle in the RTC of Muntinlupa should be dismissed with prejudice
since this is a clear case of forum shopping.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed May 11, 2009 Decision and the December 28, 2009
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No.105442, particularly insofar as these ordered the
dismissal of subject Civil Case No. 08-023 and the nullification of the orders made in that case, are
hereby AFFIRMED.