G.R. No. 210636 , July 28, 2014
MA. HAZELINA A. TUJAN-MILITANTE IN BEHALF OF THE MINOR CRISELDA M. CADA, Petitioner, vs. RAQUEL M. CADA-DEAPERA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Raquel M. Cada-Deapera, the biological mother of minor Criselda M. Cada, filed a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 130 in Caloocan City (RTC-Caloocan) on March 24, 2011, seeking custody of her daughter from petitioner Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante. The petition indicated three possible addresses for the petitioner: two in Caloocan City and Quezon City, and her office in Quezon City. The RTC-Caloocan issued the writ on March 25, 2011, but initial attempts at personal service failed. Copies were eventually left at the petitioner’s Caloocan residence on March 29, 2011. The petitioner did not appear at scheduled hearings. Meanwhile, on March 31, 2011, the petitioner filed a Petition for Guardianship over Criselda before the RTC, Branch 89 in Quezon City, which was later dismissed on July 12, 2011, due to the pending habeas corpus case. On August 8, 2011, the RTC-Caloocan granted the respondent’s motion for an alias writ, which was personally served on the petitioner in Quezon City during a preliminary investigation for a kidnapping case filed against her. The petitioner moved to quash the writ and dismiss the petition, arguing lack of personal service of summons and jurisdiction. The RTC-Caloocan denied the motion on January 20, 2012, citing that service of the writ itself confers jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s order in its Decision dated May 17, 2013, and denied reconsideration on December 27, 2013, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the RTC-Caloocan had jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition.
2. Whether the RTC-Caloocan validly acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner and the minor.
3. Whether the writ issued by the RTC-Caloocan was enforceable in Quezon City where the petitioner was served.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution.
1. The RTC-Caloocan had jurisdiction over the habeas corpus proceeding. The petition was filed under Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (Rules on Custody of Minors and Habeas Corpus) and Rule 102 of the Rules of Court. Section 20 provides that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the Family Court and that the writ is enforceable within the judicial region where that court belongs. Both Caloocan City and Quezon City are part of the National Capital Judicial Region under Section 13 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Thus, filing in Caloocan City was proper as the writ could be enforced within the same judicial region, regardless of whether the petitioner or minor resided in Quezon City. The Court clarified that Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, which petitioner invoked, applies only to petitions for custody of minors, not habeas corpus petitions.
2. The RTC-Caloocan validly acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner and the minor. Service of summons is not required in habeas corpus proceedings. Under Saulo v. Cruz, the writ of habeas corpus itself functions like a summons, and service of the writ confers jurisdiction over the respondent. Here, the alias writ was personally served on the petitioner in Quezon City, which was valid service. The rules on summons for ordinary civil actions do not apply to special proceedings like habeas corpus.
3. The writ issued by the RTC-Caloocan was enforceable in Quezon City. As both cities belong to the same judicial region (National Capital Judicial Region), the writ was enforceable in Quezon City pursuant to Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC. The place of service did not affect the validity of the writ or the court’s jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held that the RTC-Caloocan correctly took cognizance of the case and acquired jurisdiction through service of the writ.