Hontiveros, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Alejandro Hontiveros, Jr. and private respondent Brenda M. Hernando are the parents of an acknowledged natural child, Margaux H. Hontiveros, born on November 27, 1981. For the period from November 1981 to June 1982, the child was under the mother's care, with the father visiting on Saturdays. On June 21, 1982, the father took the child for a visit with the agreement that she would be returned by nightfall, but he never returned the child to the mother. Procedural History: To regain custody, private respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus (Special Proceedings No. 9784) on August 24, 1982. Petitioner subsequently filed his own petition for custody (Special Proceedings No. 9788) on August 26, 1982, which was later dismissed for abandonment. A hearing in the habeas corpus case on September 9, 1982, resulted in an agreement for joint custody, with the child under the mother's primary care but with the father having visitation rights every other week for seven days. On May 24, 1983, petitioner filed an ex parte petition for a writ of preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial Court (Branch CLVIII) to prevent the mother from taking the child out of the country. The respondent Judge granted the mother's motion to withdraw the habeas corpus petition as moot and academic and consequently denied the ancillary petition for injunction on May 30, 1983. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which dismissed his petition on August 5, 1983, and denied his motion for reconsideration on August 17, 1983. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the IAC's decision, arguing that the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing his petition for preliminary injunction without a hearing and that he is entitled to the custody of his minor child. The petition raises two issues: (1) whether the respondent Judge's order of May 30, 1983, was issued with grave abuse of discretion, and (2) whether the petitioner is entitled to the custody of his minor child. The petitioner contends he was deprived of due process, while the respondent court found that the habeas corpus petition was moot and academic due to the parties' agreement and that the injunction was ancillary. The court also noted that the petitioner had abandoned his own custody case and that under PD 603, the child under five years of age should not be separated from the mother without compelling reasons, which were not established.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the order of respondent Judge dated May 30, 1983, granting the withdrawal of the habeas corpus petition, was issued with grave abuse of discretion. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the custody of his minor child Margaux H. Hontiveros.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in allowing the withdrawal of the habeas corpus petition. The Court reasoned that the original purpose of the habeas corpus petition was to recover the child's custody, which was achieved through the September 9, 1982 order based on the parties' agreement. This order effectively satisfied the private respondent's prayer, rendering the habeas corpus petition moot and academic. Furthermore, the existence of a pending case involving the same parties and subject matter in another branch of the same court (Special Proceedings No. 9788) was admitted by the petitioner's counsel, justifying the withdrawal. The Court cited Section 2, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court, which allows dismissal of an action by order of the court at the plaintiff's instance upon proper terms and conditions. The Court also noted that the petitioner himself had abandoned his own custody case, Special Proceedings No. 9788, which was subsequently dismissed for lack of prosecution. Therefore, the respondent Judge acted within the bounds of his sound discretion. On the issue of entitlement to custody: The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding that the private respondent has a clear legal right to the custody of her minor child. The Court reiterated the principle enshrined in Article 363 of the Civil Code and Article 17 of Presidential Decree No. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code), which prioritize the child's welfare and state that a child under seven (or five, under PD 603) shall not be separated from the mother unless compelling reasons exist. The petitioner's attempt to question the mother's fitness was deemed too late, as such factual issues should have been raised and ventilated in the custody case (Special Proceedings No. 9788), which he himself abandoned. Given the absence of any compelling reason to the contrary, the private respondent's right to custody was upheld.
Main Doctrine
A petition for habeas corpus seeking custody of a child becomes moot and academic when the child is produced in court and a settlement agreement regarding custody is reached and ordered by the court. An ancillary petition for preliminary injunction based on such a mooted main action is also rendered moot and academic.