Tujan-Militante vs. Cada-Deapera

A petition for writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors may be filed with any Family Court within the judicial region where enforcement is sought, and the writ issued is enforceable throughout that judicial region regardless of the petitioner's or minor's specific city of residence within the same region; service of summons is not required, the writ itself serving as the process by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the respondent.

Respondent Raquel M. Cada-Deapera is the biological mother of minor Criselda M. Cada, while petitioner Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante is a relative who had assumed custody of the child. The dispute is governed by A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (the Rules on Custody of Minors and Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors) and Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, which together regulate the filing, issuance, and enforceability of writs of habeas corpus involving minors. The geographic framework for enforceability is supplied by Section 13 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), which groups Caloocan City and Quezon City within a single National Capital Judicial Region.

On March 24, 2011, respondent Raquel M. Cada-Deapera filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 130 in Caloocan City (RTC-Caloocan) a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus, docketed as Special Civil Action Case No. C-4344, seeking the immediate issuance of the writ to compel petitioner Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante to produce respondent's biological daughter, minor Criselda M. Cada, and to return custody of the child to respondent. In the petition, respondent listed three known addresses where petitioner could be served: (1) 24 Bangkal St., Amparo Village, Novaliches, Caloocan City; (2) 118B K9 Street, Kamias, Quezon City; and (3) her office at the Ombudsman-Office of the Special Prosecutor, 5th Floor, Sandiganbayan, Centennial Building, Commonwealth Avenue cor. Batasan Road, Quezon City.

The following day, March 25, 2011, the RTC-Caloocan issued a writ of habeas corpus directing petitioner to bring the child to court on March 28, 2011. Despite diligent efforts and several attempts, the Sheriff was unable to personally serve petitioner with copies of the petition and the writ. On March 29, 2011, the Sheriff instead left copies of the court processes at petitioner's Caloocan residence, as witnessed by respondent's counsel and barangay officials. Petitioner nevertheless failed to appear at the scheduled hearings.

Meanwhile, on March 31, 2011, petitioner filed a Petition for Guardianship over the person of Criselda before the RTC, Branch 89 in Quezon City (RTC-Quezon City). Respondent moved to dismiss the guardianship petition on the ground of litis pendentia, among others. On June 3, 2011, respondent filed a criminal complaint for kidnapping against petitioner and her counsel before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. On July 12, 2011, the RTC-Quezon City granted respondent's motion and dismissed the guardianship case due to the pendency of the habeas corpus proceedings before RTC-Caloocan.

Thereafter, on August 4, 2011, respondent moved for the ex parte issuance of an alias writ of habeas corpus before the RTC-Caloocan, which the trial court granted on August 8, 2011. On the same date, the court directed the Sheriff to serve the alias writ upon petitioner at the Office of the Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City on August 10, 2011. In compliance, the Sheriff personally served petitioner the August 8, 2011 Order and the Alias Writ during the preliminary investigation of the kidnapping case. Petitioner, by way of special appearance, moved to quash the writ and prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, claiming she was not personally served with summons and that the RTC-Caloocan therefore never acquired jurisdiction over her or the person of Criselda.

The RTC-Caloocan, in its January 20, 2012 Order, denied petitioner's omnibus motion, citing Saulo vs. Brig. Gen. Cruz for the proposition that a writ of habeas corpus plays a role comparable to a summons in ordinary civil actions, such that service of the writ confers jurisdiction over the respondent. The trial court further held that personal service need not be made exclusively at petitioner's given address, as service may be made wherever she may be found, provided a copy is handed to her in person by someone authorized by law. Since the Sheriff personally served petitioner a copy of the writ in Quezon City, the RTC-Caloocan validly acquired jurisdiction over her. The CA, in its May 17, 2013 Decision, affirmed this ruling, additionally relying on a barangay certification that petitioner was a bona fide resident of Brgy. 179, Caloocan City, and a medical certificate indicating Criselda's address as "Amparo Village, KC." The CA held that service of summons is not required under Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, the rules on summons in ordinary civil actions having no place in habeas corpus proceedings as a special proceeding. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on December 27, 2013.

• Jurisdiction over the Petition: Petitioner argued that under Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, the habeas corpus petition should have been filed before the Family Court having jurisdiction over her place of residence or that of the minor or wherever the minor may be found, and that RTC-Caloocan therefore lacked jurisdiction.
• Acquisition of Jurisdiction Over the Person: Petitioner maintained that she was not personally served with summons, and accordingly the RTC-Caloocan never acquired jurisdiction over her person or over the person of Criselda.

• Applicable Provision: Respondent asserted that the applicable rule is Section 20, not Section 3, of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, which governs petitions for writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors and provides that the writ is enforceable within the judicial region to which the Family Court belongs.

• Jurisdiction of RTC-Caloocan: Whether the RTC-Caloocan has jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition filed by respondent.
• Acquisition of Jurisdiction Over the Person: Assuming the RTC-Caloocan has jurisdiction, whether it validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and the person of Criselda.
• Enforceability of the Writ: Whether the writ issued by RTC-Caloocan is enforceable in Quezon City, where petitioner was served a copy thereof.

• Jurisdiction of RTC-Caloocan: Yes. The RTC-Caloocan correctly took cognizance of the habeas corpus petition, Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC providing that the writ is enforceable within the judicial region to which the Family Court belongs, and both Caloocan City and Quezon City falling within the National Capital Judicial Region under Section 13 of BP 129.
• Acquisition of Jurisdiction Over the Person: Yes. Jurisdiction over petitioner was validly acquired when she was personally served with a copy of the alias writ in Quezon City; service of summons is not required in habeas corpus proceedings, the writ itself functioning comparably to a summons.
• Enforceability of the Writ: Yes. The writ issued by RTC-Caloocan is enforceable in Quezon City because both cities belong to the same National Capital Judicial Region, making petitioner's actual residence in either city immaterial.

• Jurisdiction of RTC-Caloocan: What respondent filed was a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC and Rule 102 of the Rules of Court. Section 20 expressly provides that a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court and that the writ shall be enforceable within its judicial region. Because the writ is made enforceable within a judicial region, such petitions may be filed with any of the proper RTCs within the judicial region where enforcement is sought. Section 13 of BP 129 defines the National Capital Judicial Region as consisting of, among others, the cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan, and Mandaluyong. Since respondent filed the petition before the Family Court of Caloocan City, and Caloocan City and Quezon City both belong to the same judicial region, the writ issued by RTC-Caloocan can be implemented in Quezon City. Petitioner's reliance on Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC was misplaced, as that provision applies only to petitions for custody of minors and not to habeas corpus petitions; the provision invoked by petitioner uses the phrase "petition for custody of minors," which is distinct from a "petition for writ of habeas corpus" under Section 20.
• Acquisition of Jurisdiction Over the Person: Service of summons is not required in a habeas corpus petition, whether under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC. As held in Saulo vs. Cruz, a writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhat comparable to a summons in ordinary civil actions, in that by service of the writ the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. Since the Sheriff personally served petitioner a copy of the alias writ during the preliminary investigation of the kidnapping case in Quezon City, the RTC-Caloocan validly acquired jurisdiction over her person. Personal service does not require that service be made exclusively at petitioner's given address; it may be made wherever she may be found, provided a copy is handed to her in person by someone authorized by law.
• Enforceability of the Writ: The enforceability of the writ within the judicial region flows directly from Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, which states that "the writ shall be enforceable within its judicial region to which the Family Court belongs." Because both Caloocan City and Quezon City are enumerated as component cities of the National Capital Judicial Region under Section 13 of BP 129, whether petitioner resides in the former or the latter is immaterial. The writ issued by the RTC-Caloocan is therefore enforceable in Quezon City, and service thereof upon petitioner in Quezon City was valid.

• Enforceability of Writ of Habeas Corpus Within the Judicial Region — Under Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court, and the writ shall be enforceable within the judicial region to which the Family Court belongs. Because the enforceability is keyed to the judicial region rather than to a specific city or province, the petition may be filed with any proper RTC within the judicial region where enforcement is sought. The Court applied this rule by reference to Section 13 of BP 129, which groups Caloocan City and Quezon City within the National Capital Judicial Region, thereby rendering the writ issued by RTC-Caloocan enforceable in Quezon City.
• Writ of Habeas Corpus as Functional Equivalent of Summons — In habeas corpus proceedings, service of summons is not required. The writ of habeas corpus itself plays a role comparable to a summons in ordinary civil actions, such that by service of the writ the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. This doctrine, drawn from Saulo vs. Cruz, was applied to uphold the RTC-Caloocan's acquisition of jurisdiction over petitioner when the Sheriff personally served her a copy of the alias writ in Quezon City.
• Distinction Between Petition for Custody of Minors and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus — Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, which requires filing the petition for custody of minors with the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be found, applies only to petitions for custody of minors. Section 20 of the same rules separately governs petitions for writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors, providing for enforceability within the judicial region. The Court applied this distinction to reject petitioner's invocation of Section 3.

• "Considering that the writ is made enforceable within a judicial region, petitions for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, whether they be filed under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court or pursuant to Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, may therefore be filed with any of the proper RTCs within the judicial region where enforcement thereof is sought." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on jurisdiction: the enforceability of the writ within the judicial region means the petition may be filed with any proper RTC within that region, not limited to the court of the city where the petitioner or minor resides.
• "[A] writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhat comparable to a summons, in ordinary civil actions, in that, by service of said writ, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent." — This formulation, quoted from Saulo vs. Cruz, defines the doctrine that service of the writ itself—not service of summons—confers jurisdiction over the respondent in habeas corpus proceedings, a principle central to the Court's ruling on acquisition of jurisdiction.
• "[W]hether petitioner resides in the former or the latter is immaterial in view of the above rule." — This sentence crystallizes the Court's holding that the specific city of residence within the same judicial region is irrelevant to the enforceability of the writ, directly resolving the issue of the writ's enforceability in Quezon City.

• Saulo vs. Brig. Gen. Cruz, 105 Phil. 315 (1959) — Controlling precedent on the nature of the writ of habeas corpus as functional equivalent of summons. The Court followed this case in holding that service of the writ, not service of summons, confers jurisdiction over the respondent in habeas corpus proceedings. Both the RTC-Caloocan and the Supreme Court relied on this authority.

• Section 20, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (Rules on Custody of Minors and Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors) — Governs petitions for writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors. Provides that the petition shall be filed with the Family Court and that the writ shall be enforceable within its judicial region. Also allows filing with regular courts in the absence of the Family Court presiding judge or where no Family Courts exist, and with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any of its members, in which case the writ is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. Applied to hold that RTC-Caloocan had jurisdiction and that the writ was enforceable in Quezon City.
• Section 3, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC — Provides that the petition for custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be found. Distinguished and held inapplicable, as it governs petitions for custody of minors, not habeas corpus petitions under Section 20.
• Section 13, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) — Enumerates the thirteen judicial regions, including the National Capital Judicial Region, which consists of the cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan, and Mandaluyong, and specified municipalities. Applied to establish that Caloocan City and Quezon City belong to the same judicial region, thereby supporting the enforceability of the writ across both cities.
• Rule 102, Rules of Court — Governs habeas corpus proceedings generally. Cited alongside Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC as the procedural basis for respondent's petition, and referenced in the Court's holding that service of summons is not required in habeas corpus proceedings under either Rule 102 or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC.

Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Catral Mendoza, and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen concurred. No separate concurring opinions were written.