View full case

CRISELDA M. CADA, REPRESENTED BY MA. HAZELINA A. TUJAN-MILITANTE v. RAQUEL M. CADA-DEAPERA

FACTS:

Respondent Raquel M. Cada-Deapera filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 130 in Caloocan City (RTC-Caloocan), demanding the immediate issuance of the special writ directing petitioner Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante to produce her daughter, Criselda M. Cada, and to return custody of the child to her. The RTC-Caloocan issued a writ of habeas corpus, but was unable to personally serve petitioner copies of the petition and writ. Petitioner also filed a petition for guardianship over Criselda before the RTC, Branch 89 in Quezon City (RTC-Quezon City). The RTC-Quezon City granted respondent's motion to dismiss the guardianship case due to the pendency of the habeas corpus petition before the RTC-Caloocan. Respondent then moved for the issuance of an alias writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by the RTC-Caloocan. Petitioner moved for the quashal of the writ and the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, arguing that she was not personally served with summons. The RTC-Caloocan denied petitioner's motion, stating that personal service does not necessarily require service at the given address as long as petitioner was handed a copy of the writ. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari to reverse the CA decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the RTC-Caloocan has jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition filed by respondent.

  2. Assuming arguendo RTC-Caloocan has jurisdiction, whether or not it validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and Criselda.

  3. Whether or not the writ issued by RTC-Caloocan is enforceable in Quezon City where petitioner was served a copy thereof.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition for certiorari and upheld the jurisdiction of the RTC-Caloocan over the habeas corpus petition. The CA ruled that jurisdiction was properly laid when respondent filed the petition before the designated Family Court in Caloocan City. The CA also held that service of summons is not required in petitions for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Thus, the RTC-Caloocan validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and Criselda. The CA further stated that the writ issued by the RTC-Caloocan is enforceable in Quezon City where petitioner was served a copy thereof. The CA ordered the RTC-Caloocan to proceed with due dispatch in the habeas corpus case, considering the best interest of the child.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhat comparable to a summons in ordinary civil actions. By service of said writ, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.

  • Personal service in habeas corpus cases does not require that service be made exclusively at the petitioner's given address. Service may be made elsewhere or wherever the respondent may be found as long as a copy of the court process is personally handed to the respondent by anyone authorized by law.

  • Service of summons is not required in petitions for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The rules on summons in ordinary civil actions have no place in habeas corpus petitions.