G.R. No. 268979 , February 05, 2025
JEFFREY ROSACAY EMPUERTO AND LEONIDO AND ROSALYN EMPUERTO, PETITIONERS, vs. SHEENA OLPOC CABRILLOS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On February 26, 2013, respondent Sheena Olpoc Cabrillos gave birth to Yuno Hanzo Cabrillos Empuerto. Petitioner Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto acknowledged paternity. The parents lived with Jeffrey’s parents, petitioners spouses Leonido and Rosalyn Empuerto, in Davao City. In 2017, Sheena and Jeffrey separated, and Sheena left with Yuno to live with her parents in Cotabato City. Jeffrey maintained communication and had Yuno stay with him during holidays. On March 13, 2020, Jeffrey brought Yuno to Davao for a summer vacation, which was extended due to the COVID-19 lockdown. Sheena’s subsequent requests for Yuno’s return were ignored. On July 6, 2020, Sheena went to Davao to fetch Yuno, but Jeffrey and his parents refused. A subsequent attempt on August 6, 2020, with police and a social worker, failed as Yuno refused to go with Sheena. A barangay agreement was reached for custody turnover in April 2021, but Jeffrey failed to comply. Sheena then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued the writ and, after a hearing on May 5, 2021, issued an Order incorporating a compromise agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena on custody terms, which included turning over custody to Sheena after July 2021, visitation schedules, and conditions for the child’s care. The RTC approved the agreement, deemed the case closed and terminated, and directed the sheriff to enforce the turnover. The Empuertos moved for reconsideration, demanding a full-blown trial, but the RTC denied it. The sheriff’s attempt to enforce the order failed as Yuno again refused to go with Sheena. The Empuertos filed an Urgent Verified Motion for Preliminary Restraints with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a September 27, 2022 Resolution, denied the prayer for a preliminary injunction. In an October 18, 2022 Decision, the CA partly granted the appeal, reversing the RTC’s orders to the extent that they closed and terminated the case, deeming the custody terms in the May 5, 2021 Order as merely provisional, and directing the RTC to proceed with a hearing. The CA denied the Empuertos’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration in a July 19, 2023 Resolution. The Empuertos then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that Jeffrey, as the biological father and actual custodian, has a right to custody, and that Sheena had previously exposed Yuno to violence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the compromise agreement on custody incorporated in the RTC’s May 5, 2021 Order was merely provisional and in directing the RTC to conduct a full-blown trial to determine rightful custody.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that upon the return of the writ of habeas corpus, the trial court must determine the rightful custody of the child and may issue a provisional order awarding custody in compliance with Sections 13 and 14 of the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors. The Court found that the RTC’s May 5, 2021 Order, which approved the parties’ compromise agreement, effectively resolved the habeas corpus petition by determining custody. However, since the Empuertos persistently demanded a full trial on the issue of Sheena’s fitness as a custodian, alleging prior incidents of harm and abuse, the proper course was for the trial court to conduct further proceedings to conclusively settle the issue of custody. The Court of Appeals correctly deemed the custody arrangement as provisional and directed the RTC to proceed with the hearing. The provisional order must be implemented pending the final judgment. The Supreme Court emphasized that the writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention, and its primary purpose is to inquire into the legality of one’s detention. In custody cases, the writ is used to determine who has the right of custody over a minor. The best interest of the child remains the paramount consideration.