1997 - 2006 all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas
ised in cases on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in
Cancellation or Correction; Entries Civil Registry (2005)
Helen is the daughter of Eliza, a Filipina, and Tony, a
Chinese, who is married to another woman living in China.
Her birth certificate indicates that Helen is the legitimate
child of Tony and Eliza and that she is a Chinese citizen.
Helen wants her birth certificate corrected by changing her
filiation from "legitimate" to "illegitimate" and her
citizenship from "Chinese" to "Filipino" because her parents
were not married. What petition should Helen file and what
procedural requirements must be observed? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A petition to change the record of birth by changing the
filiation from "legitimate" to "illegitimate" and
petitioner's citizenship from "Chinese" to "Filipino"
because her parents were not married, does not involve a
simple summary correction, which could otherwise be
done under the authority of R.A. No. 9048. A petition has
to be filed in a proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court, which has now been interpreted to be adversarial in
nature. (Republic v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-32181, March 5,
1986) Procedural requirements include: (a) filing a verified
petition; (b) naming as parties all persons who have or
claim any interest which would be affected; (c) issuance of
an order fixing the time and place of hearing; (d) giving
reasonable notice to the parties named in the petition;
and (e) publication of the order once a week for three
consecutive seeks in a newspaper of general circulation.
(Rule 108, Rules of Court)
Habeas Corpus (1993)
Roxanne, a widow, filed a petition for habeas corpus with
the Court of Appeals against Major Amor who is allegedly
detaining her 18-year old son Bong without authority of the
law.
After Major Amor had a filed a return alleging the cause of
detention of Bong, the Court of Appeals promulgated a
resolution remanding the case to the RTC for a full-blown
trial due to the conflicting facts presented by the parties in
their pleadings. In directing the remand, the court of
Appeals relied on Sec.9(1), in relation to Sec. 21 of BP 129
conferring upon said Court the authority to try and decide
habeas corpus cases concurrently with the RTCs.
Did the Court of Appeals act correctly in remanding the
petition to the RTC? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because while the CA has original jurisdiction over
habeas corpus concurrent with the RTCs, it has no
authority for remanding to the latter original actions filed
with the former. On the contrary, the CA is specifically
given the power to receive evidence and perform any and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
falling within its original jurisdiction.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, because there is no prohibition in the law against a
superior court referring a case to a lower court having
concurrent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has referred to
the CA or the RTC cases falling within their concurrent
jurisdiction.
Habeas Corpus (1998)
A was arrested on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued
by the RTC in connection with an Information for Homicide.
W, the live-in partner of A filed a petition for habeas corpus
against A's jailer and police investigators with the Court of
Appeals.
1. Does W have the personality to file the petition for
habeas corpus? [2%]
2. Is the petition tenable? [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Yes. W, the live-in partner of A, has the personality to
file the petition for habeas corpus because it may be filed
by "some person in his behalf." (Sec. 3. Rule 102. Rules of
Court.)
2. NO. The petition is not tenable because the warrant of
arrest was issued by a court which had Jurisdiction to issue
it.
Habeas Corpus (2003)
Widow A and her two children, both girls, aged 8 and 12
years old, reside in Angeles City, Pampanga. A leaves her
two daughters in their house at night because she works in
a brothel as a prostitute. Realizing the danger to the morals
of these two girls, B, the father of the deceased husband of
A, files a petition for habeas corpus against A for the
custody of the girls in the Family Court in Angeles City. In
said petition, B alleges that he is entitled to the custody of
the two girls because their mother is living a disgraceful life.
The court issues the writ of habeas corpus. When A learns
of the petition and the writ, she brings her two children to
Cebu City. At the expense of B the sheriff of the said Family
Court goes to Cebu City and serves the writ on A. A files her
comment on the petition raising the following defenses:
a) The enforcement of the writ of habeas corpus in Cebu
City is illegal; and
b) B has no personality to institute the petition. 6% Resolve
the petition in the light of the above defenses of A. (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The writ of habeas corpus issued by the Family Court in
Angeles City may not be legally enforced in Cebu City,
because the writ is enforceable only within the judicial
region to which the Family Court belongs, unlike the writ
granted by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals which is
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. (Sec. 20 of Rule
Relation to Custody of Minors. (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC; see
also Sec. 4 of Rule 102, Rules of Court.)
(b) B, the father of the deceased husband of A, has the
personality to institute the petition for habeas corpus of
the two minor girls, because the grandparent has the right
of custody as against the mother A who is a prostitute.
(Sectioins 2 and 13, Id.)
Cancellation or Correction; Notice (2007)
No.VII. (a) B files a petition for cancellation of the birth
certificate of her daughter R on the ground of the falsified
material entries therein made by B’s husband as the
informant. The RTC sets the case for hearing and directs the
publication of the order for hearing and directs the
publication of the order once a week for three consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Summons was
service on the Civil Registrar but there was no appearance
during the hearing. The RTC granted the petition. R filed a
petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of
Appeals, saying that she was not notified of the petition and
hence, the decision was issued in violation of due process. B
opposed saying that the publication of the court order was
sufficient compliance with due process. Rule. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
R‟s petition for annulment of judgment before the
Court of Appeals should be granted. Although there was
publication of the court order acting the petition to cancel
the birth certificate, reasonable notice still has to be
served on R as she has an interest affected by the
cancellation. (Sec. 3 and 4, Rule 108, Rules of Court) She is
an indispensable party (Republic v. Benemerito, 425 SCRA
488 [2004]), and notice has to be served on her, not for
the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but to
comply with the requirements of fair play and due process
(Ceruila v. Delantar, 477 SCRA 134 [2005]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The petition for annulment of judgment should not be
granted. While R is an indispensable party, it has been
held that the failure to service notice on indispensable
parties is cured by the publication made because the
action is one in rem (Alba v. Court of Appeals, 465 SCRA
495 [2005]; Barco v. Court of Appeals, 420 SCRA 39
[2005]).
Habeas Corpus (2007)
No.IV. Husband H files a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage before the RTC of Pasig City. Wife W files a
petition for habeas corpus before the RTC of Pasay City,
praying for custody over their minor child. H files a motion
to dismiss the wife’s petition on the ground of the
pendency of the other case. Rule.
The motion to dismiss the petition for habeas corpus
should be granted to avoid multiplicity of suits. The
question of who between the spouses should have
custody of their minor child could also be determined in
the petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage
which is already pending in the RTC of Pasig City. In other
words, the petition filed in Pasig City, praying for custody
of the minor child is unnecessary and violates only the
cardinal rules of procedure against multiplicity of suits.
Hence, the latter suit may be abated by a motion to
dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia (Yu v. Yu, 484
SCRA 485 [2006]).
Habeas Corpus; Bail (2008)
No.XIX. After Alma had started serving her sentence for
violation of BP 22, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, citing Vaca vs CA where the sentence of
imprisonment of a party found guilty of violation of BP 22
was reduced to a fine equal to double the amount of the
check involved. She prayed that her sentence be similarly
modified and that she be immediately released from
detention. In the alternative, she prayed that pending
determination on whether the Vaca ruling applies to her,
she be allowed to post bail pursuant to Rule 102, Sec. 14,
which provides that if a person is lawfully imprisoned or
restrained on a charge of having committed an offense not
punishable by death, he may be admitted to bail in the
discretion of the court. accordingly, the trial court allowed
Alma to post bail and then ordered her release. In your
opinion, is the order of the trial court correct –
(a) Under Rule 102?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Alma, who is already convicted by final judgment,
cannot be entitled to bail under Sec. 14, Rule 102. The
provision presupposes that she had not been convicted as
yet. It provides that if she is lawfully imprisoned or
restrained for an offense not punishable by death, she
may be recommitted to imprisonment or admitted to bail
in the discretion of the court or judge (Sec. 14, Rule 102;
Celeste vs. People, 31 SCRA 391; Vicente vs. Judge
Majaducon, A.M. No. RTJ-02- 1698, 23 June 2005; San
Pedro vs. Peo, G.R. No. 133297, 15 August 2002).
Under the Rules of criminal procedure?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Sec. 24
clearly prohibits the grant of bail after conviction by final
judgment and after the convict has started to serve
sentence. In the present case, Alma had already started
serving her sentence. She cannot, therefore, apply for bail
(Peo. vs. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, 27 October 2006).
Habeas Corpus; Jurisdiction; Sandiganbayan (2009)
No.XI.C. In the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the
Sandiganbayan may grant petitions for the issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FALSE. The Sandiganbayan may grant petitions for Habeas
corpus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction (R.A. 7975, as
amended by R.A 8249), not in the exercise of “original”
jurisdiction.