G.R. No. 164915 ; March 10, 2006
ERIC JONATHAN YU, Petitioner, vs. CAROLINE T. YU, Respondent.

FACTS

The spouses Eric Jonathan Yu and Caroline T. Yu engaged in protracted litigation over the custody of their minor child, Bianca. Petitioner Eric initially filed a habeas corpus petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) to obtain custody. While that was pending, respondent Caroline filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Pasig RTC, which included a prayer for custody. The CA eventually dismissed the habeas corpus petition as moot. Subsequently, Eric filed his own nullity case before the Pasig RTC, praying for sole custody. Caroline then filed a separate habeas corpus petition specifically for custody before the Pasay RTC.
Both the Pasig RTC (in the nullity case) and the Pasay RTC (in the habeas corpus case) issued conflicting orders regarding custody and visitation. The Pasig RTC asserted jurisdiction over the custody issue as an incident to the nullity case and granted Eric temporary custody. The Pasay RTC, however, denied Eric’s motion to dismiss Caroline’s habeas corpus petition, assumed jurisdiction, and issued its own custody arrangement. Eric elevated the case, arguing the Pasay RTC acted without jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Pasay Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of and issuing orders in the habeas corpus case for custody filed by Caroline, despite the pendency of a prior petition for nullity of marriage which inherently includes the issue of custody.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the habeas corpus case before the Pasay RTC. The Court held that a petition for habeas corpus relative to the custody of a minor is suppletory to the primary remedy available under the Family Code. When a petition for nullity of marriage, which includes a prayer for custody, is filed ahead of or is already pending, the issue of custody is deemed absorbed and should be resolved as an incident of that main case. The habeas corpus petition becomes unnecessary.
The legal logic is grounded in judicial hierarchy, orderliness, and the prevention of forum shopping. The Pasig RTC, where the nullity case was first filed, had already acquired jurisdiction over the custody issue. Allowing the Pasay RTC to proceed with a separate habeas corpus case for custody would result in conflicting decisions and violate the rule against multiplicity of suits. The Court emphasized that the subsequent filing of the habeas corpus petition in Pasay constituted forum shopping, as it sought the same relief—custody of Bianca—that was already pending resolution in the Pasig nullity case. Therefore, the Pasay RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the case. Custody must be adjudicated solely in the pending nullity proceedings before the Pasig RTC.