Castro v. Gregorio (G.R. No.

1888801; 15 October 2014)

The law on adoption requires that the adoption by a spouse of his or her child born out of
wedlock obtain not only the consent of his or her spouse but also the consent of his or her
legitimate children. As a general rule, the husband and wife must file a joint petition for adoption.
But there are exceptions to this, as in a situation where a spouse seeks to adopt his or her own
children born out of wedlock. In this instance, joint adoption is not necessary. However, the
spouse seeking to adopt his own child born out of wedlock must first obtain the consent of his or
her spouse, pursuant to Article III, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8552. Also, Section 9 of the
same law provides that the written consent of the adopter's children is required if they are 10
years old or older. This is to ensure harmony among the prospective siblings and puts the other
children on notice that they will have to share their parent's love and care, as well as their future
legitimes, with another person.
Q: Whose consent is required when a father seeks to adopt his own children born out of
wedlock?
A: The law on adoption requires that the adoption by a spouse of his or her child born out of
wedlock obtain not only the consent of his or her spouse but also the consent of his or her
legitimate children. As a general rule, the husband and wife must file a joint petition for adoption.
But there are exceptions to this, as in a situation where a spouse seeks to adopt his or her own
children born out of wedlock. In this instance, joint adoption is not necessary. However, the
spouse seeking to adopt his own child born out of wedlock must first obtain the consent of his or
her spouse, pursuant to Article III, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8552. Also, Section 9 of the
same law provides that the written consent of the adopter's children is required if they are 10
years old or older. This is to ensure harmony among the prospective siblings and puts the other
children on notice that they will have to share their parent's love and care, as well as their future
legitimes, with another person.
Tujan-Militante v. Cada-Deapera (G.R. No. 210636; 28 July 2014)
Doctrine #1
Petitions for issuance of writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors under Section 20 of
the A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC and Rule 102 of the Rules of Court shall be filed with the Family
Court. However, the petition may also be filed with the regular courts: (1) in places where there
are no Family Courts; or (2) in the absence of the presiding judge of the Family Court, provided,
however, that the regular court shall refer the case to the Family Court as soon as its presiding
judge returns to duty. The writ issued by the Family Court or the regular court shall be
enforceable in the judicial region where these courts belong.
The petition may also be filed Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or with any of its members and,
if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The writ may be made
returnable to a Family Court or to any regular court within the region where the petitioner
resides or where the minor may be found for hearing and decision on the merits. Upon return of
the writ, the court shall decide the issue on custody of minors. The appellate court, or the
member thereof, issuing the writ shall be furnished a copy of the decision.
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.
Q: Which court has jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus involving custody of
minors?
Petitions for issuance of writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors under Section 20 of
the A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC and Rule 102 of the Rules of Court shall be filed with the Family
Court. However, the petition may also be filed with the regular courts: (1) in places where there
are no Family Courts; or (2) in the absence of the presiding judge of the Family Court, provided,
however, that the regular court shall refer the case to the Family Court as soon as its presiding
judge returns to duty. The writ issued by the Family Court or the regular court shall be
enforceable in the judicial region where these courts belong.
The petition may also be filed Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or with any of its members and,
if so granted, the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The writ may be made
returnable to a Family Court or to any regular court within the region where the petitioner
resides or where the minor may be found for hearing and decision on the merits. Upon return of
the writ, the court shall decide the issue on custody of minors. The appellate court, or the
member thereof, issuing the writ shall be furnished a copy of the decision. 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.
Doctrine #2:
Summons is not required in a habeas corpus petition, be it under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court
or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC.
Q: Is summons required in filing a petition for habeas corpus involving custody of
minors?
A: No, summons is not required in a habeas corpus petition, be it under Rule 102 of the Rules of
Court or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC.

Salibo v. Warden, QC Jail (G.R. No. 197597; 8 April 2015)

Doctrine #1
Habeas corpus is the remedy for a person deprived of liberty due to mistaken identity. In such
cases, the person is not under any lawful process and is continuously being illegally detained.
Q: What is the remedy for a person deprived of liberty due to mistaken identity?
A: Habeas corpus is the remedy for a person deprived of liberty due to mistaken identity. In
such cases, the person is not under any lawful process and is continuously being illegally
detained.
Doctrine #2

Even if a Motion to Quash Information and/or warrant of arrest is filed on the ground of mistaken
identity, the defect could not have been cured by mere amendment of the Information and/or
Warrant of Arrest. Changing the name of the accused appearing in the Information and/or
Warrant of Arrest will not cure the lack of preliminary investigation. A motion for reinvestigation
will not cure the defect of lack of preliminary investigation
Q: Is motion to quash information and/or warrant of arrest a proper remedy in cases
where a person with a mistaken identity is detained and there was no preliminary
investigation conducted prior to such detention?
A: No, none of the grounds for filing a Motion to Quash Information apply. Even if a Motion to
Quash Information and/or warrant of arrest is filed on the ground of mistaken identity, the defect
could not have been cured by mere amendment of the Information and/or Warrant of Arrest.
Changing the name of the accused appearing in the Information and/or Warrant of Arrest will not
cure the lack of preliminary investigation. A motion for reinvestigation will not cure the defect of
lack of preliminary investigation
Doctrine #3
An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made through a petition filed before the
Supreme Court or any of its members, Court of Appeals or any of its members in instances
authorized by law, or the RTC or any of its presiding judges. The court or judge grants the writ
and requires the officer or person having custody of the person allegedly restrained of liberty to
file a return of the writ. A hearing on the return of the writ is then conducted.
The return of the writ may be heard by a court apart from that which issued the writ. Should the
court issuing the writ designate a lower court to which the writ is made returnable, the lower
court shall proceed to decide the petition of habeas corpus. By virtue of the designation, the
lower court acquires the power and authority to determine the merits of the petition for habeas
corpus. Therefore, the decision on the petition is a decision appealable to the court that has
appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the lower court.
Q: Where shall petitions for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus be filed?
An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made through a petition filed before the
Supreme Court or any of its members, Court of Appeals or any of its members in instances
authorized by law, or the RTC or any of its presiding judges. The court or judge grants the writ
and requires the officer or person having custody of the person allegedly restrained of liberty to
file a return of the writ. A hearing on the return of the writ is then conducted.
The return of the writ may be heard by a court apart from that which issued the writ. Should the
court issuing the writ designate a lower court to which the writ is made returnable, the lower
court shall proceed to decide the petition of habeas corpus. By virtue of the designation, the
lower court acquires the power and authority to determine the merits of the petition for habeas
corpus. Therefore, the decision on the petition is a decision appealable to the court that has
appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the lower court.
Doctrine #4
The writ of habeas corpus is that which commands the production of the body of the person
allegedly restrained of his or her liberty. On the other hand, it is in the final decision where a
court determines the legality of the restraint. Between the issuance of the writ and the final
decision on the petition for its issuance, it is the issuance of the writ that is essential. The

issuance of the writ sets in motion the speedy judicial inquiry on the legality of any deprivation of
liberty. Courts shall liberally issue writs of habeas corpus even if the petition for its issuance on
its face is devoid of merit. Although the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be
suspended in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when the public safety requires it, the writ itself
may not be suspended
Q: What is the difference between a writ of habeas corpus and the final decision on
petition for the issuance of the writ?
A: The writ of habeas corpus is that which commands the production of the body of the person
allegedly restrained of his or her liberty. On the other hand, it is in the final decision where a
court determines the legality of the restraint. Between the issuance of the writ and the final
decision on the petition for its issuance, it is the issuance of the writ that is essential. The
issuance of the writ sets in motion the speedy judicial inquiry on the legality of any deprivation of
liberty. Courts shall liberally issue writs of habeas corpus even if the petition for its issuance on
its face is devoid of merit. Although the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be
suspended in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when the public safety requires it, the writ itself
may not be suspended