Salientes v. Abanilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from the separation of private respondent Loran S.D. Abanilla and petitioner Marie Antonette Abigail C. Salientes, parents of the minor Lorenzo Emmanuel S. Abanilla. Following their separation, with Abanilla leaving the Salientes' residence due to marital discord, he alleged that he was subsequently prevented from seeing his son. Abanilla then initiated legal proceedings to regain contact and custody of their child. Procedural History: Private respondent Loran S.D. Abanilla filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus and Custody before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City. The RTC issued an order directing the petitioners, Marie Antonette Salientes and her parents, to produce the minor child in court and show cause why the child should not be discharged from restraint. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, they filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed their petition, affirming the RTC's order as a standard procedure for producing a restrained person and not a grant of custody. The CA also denied their motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners are now before the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. They argue that the CA erred in not finding the RTC judge gravely abused his discretion in issuing the writ of habeas corpus. Petitioners contend that there was no unlawful restraint by the mother, who is presumed fit to have custody of her child under seven years of age, and that the writ of habeas corpus was an inappropriate remedy. They also raise arguments regarding the application of the tender-years rule and the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the private respondent.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari against the trial court’s orders dated January 23, 2003, and February 24, 2003; Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the order for the production of the minor child and to show cause; and Whether the writ of habeas corpus was the proper remedy under the circumstances.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On all issues: The Supreme Court held that the assailed January 23, 2003 Order of the trial court did not grant custody of the minor to any party but merely directed the petitioners to produce the minor and explain why his liberty was being restrained. This order was an interlocutory order precedent to the trial court’s full inquiry into the issue of custody. Under Rule 41, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, an interlocutory order is not appealable, but a special action under Rule 65 may be filed if there is grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the writ of habeas corpus may be resorted to in cases where rightful custody is withheld from a person entitled thereto. Under Article 211 of the Family Code, both parents have joint parental authority and joint custody. In the absence of a judicial grant of custody to one parent, both are entitled to custody. The private respondent's cause of action was the alleged deprivation of his right to see his child, making the remedy of habeas corpus available to him. The Court emphasized that the child's welfare is the supreme consideration in habeas corpus cases involving custody. The order was consistent with Section 9 of A.M. 03-04-04-SC, which requires the respondent to present the minor before the court. Therefore, the trial court did not err in issuing the orders, and the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari.
Main Doctrine
A writ of habeas corpus is available to a father to enforce his right to see his child, even if the child is under seven years of age, when custody has not yet been judicially adjudicated and the father alleges deprivation of his right to see the child. The writ is not an adjudication of custody but a means to produce the child and inquire into the legality of the restraint.