Empuerto v. Cabrillos
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On February 26, 2013, Sheena Olpoc Cabrillos gave birth to Yuno Hanzo Cabrillos Empuerto, whose father is Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto; the parents and child initially lived with Jeffrey's parents in Davao City. In 2017, Sheena and Jeffrey separated, and Sheena moved with Yuno to Cotabato City, though Jeffrey maintained contact and visits. In March 2020, Yuno was brought to Davao City for a summer vacation, extended due to the COVID-19 lockdown, but when Sheena requested his return, Jeffrey and his parents refused to hand over the child. Subsequent attempts by Sheena to retrieve Yuno, including one with police and social worker assistance, were unsuccessful, and an agreement reached at the barangay level for Yuno's custody to be transferred to Sheena after his classes in April 2021 was also not honored by the Empuertos. 2. Procedural History: Following the Empuertos' failure to comply with the barangay agreement, Sheena filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, which on May 5, 2021, approved a compromise agreement between Sheena and Jeffrey regarding Yuno's custody and declared the case closed. The Empuertos' motion for reconsideration seeking a full-blown trial was denied by the RTC, and a Sheriff's Return indicated Yuno refused to go with Sheena despite the court order. The Empuertos then filed an Urgent Verified Motion for Preliminary Restraints with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to restrain the execution of the RTC's order and to remand the case for a full-blown trial, but the CA denied the prayer for preliminary injunction. In its October 18, 2022 Decision, the CA partly granted the Empuertos' appeal, reversing and setting aside the RTC's closure and termination of the case, but deemed the custody agreement as provisional and directed the RTC to proceed with a hearing, later denying the Empuertos' Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The RTC then attempted to implement the CA's decision by setting a hearing and directing the sheriff to transfer Yuno's provisional custody to Sheena, prompting this Court, on October 23, 2023, to grant a temporary restraining order enjoining the RTC from proceeding with the case. 3. The Petition: The Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before this Court assails the CA's September 27, 2022 Resolution, October 18, 2022 Decision, and July 19, 2023 Resolution. The petitioners, the Empuertos, argue that custody does not automatically vest on Sheena as Yuno's mother, and that Jeffrey, as the biological father and actual custodian, has a clear right to custody. They contend that a mere agreement between parents before trial cannot finally determine the custody of an illegitimate child and that the CA erred in deeming the May 5, 2021 compromise agreement as a provisional order for custody. The Empuertos also raise concerns about Sheena's alleged unfitness as a custodian due to past incidents of violence against Yuno, and pray for a temporary restraining order to prevent trauma to the child. They maintain that a full-blown trial is necessary to determine Yuno's best interests and that the RTC's May 5, 2021 order was improperly issued without a proper answer being filed. The primary issue presented to this Court is whether the CA erred in deeming the compromise agreement provisional and directing its implementation pending a full-blown trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deeming provisional and directing the implementation of the compromise agreement between Sheena and Jeffrey, while awaiting judgment after a full-blown trial. Whether the RTC erred in issuing a provisional order awarding custody without an answer being filed, in terminating the case without a full-blown trial, and the necessity of a full-blown trial to determine rightful custody.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the Petition. The assailed Court of Appeals October 18, 2022 Decision and July 19, 2023 Resolution are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the court of origin for proper determination of the party with rightful custody, considering the best interests of the minor, with DISPATCH. In the meantime, custody over minor child Yuno Hanzo Cabrillos Empuerto shall remain with his actual custodians, petitioners Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto and spouses Leonido and Rosalyn Empuerto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' ruling on the compromise agreement and provisional custody: The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in deeming the terms of the May 5, 2021 agreement as a provisional order awarding custody and directing its implementation. The RTC's May 5, 2021 Order failed to comply with Section 13 of the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors, which requires an answer to be filed or the period for filing it to expire before a provisional order can be issued. In this case, the petitioners were not duly served with summons and did not have the opportunity to file their answer before the RTC terminated the proceedings. Therefore, the compromise agreement, as incorporated in the RTC's order, could not be considered a full-fledged provisional order awarding custody. The Court reiterated that a compromise agreement between parents regarding a child's custody is generally frowned upon by the Court, as the child's rights should not be solely dependent on the parents' wishes or agreements. A full-blown trial is imperative to determine the fitness of each parent and to ensure the child's best interests are met. The Court emphasized that the RTC's hasty termination of the case without a trial was contrary to established jurisprudence and the rules governing custody cases. On the RTC's error in issuing a provisional order, terminating the case without a trial, and the necessity of a full-blown trial: The Supreme Court held that a full-blown trial is necessary for the proper determination of rightful custody, considering the child's best interests. The Court cited several cases, including Lacson v. San Jose-Lacson, Laxamana v. Laxamana, and Bagtas v. Judge Santos, to underscore that courts must step in to determine custody based on evidence presented, not merely on parental agreements. The trial court must evaluate the fitness of both parties to assume custody, taking into account the child's paramount interest. The Court also highlighted that Section 14 of the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors enumerates factors that the court must consider, such as the child's health, safety, welfare, and environment, as well as any history of abuse. The RTC's failure to conduct a trial and consider these factors meant it did not properly rule on the requisites for granting custody: the petitioner's right of custody, the withholding of such custody, and the best interest of the minor. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for a proper determination of rightful custody, emphasizing that this is a question of fact to be entertained in the special proceedings.
Main Doctrine
A compromise agreement between parents regarding a child's custody, when incorporated into a court order, does not automatically constitute a provisional order awarding custody under Section 13 of the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors, especially if an answer to the petition has not been filed. A full-blown trial is necessary to determine rightful custody, considering the best interests of the minor.