Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 675 views

    Tujan Militante Vs Cada Deapera

    Uploaded by

    JaylordPataotao
    The RTC of Caloocan City had jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition filed by Raquel Cada-Deapera regarding the custody of her biological daughter, Criselda Cada. While the petitioner Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante resided in Quezon City, both cities are within the same judicial region. Therefore, the writ of habeas corpus issued by the RTC of Caloocan City could be enforced in Quezon City. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts, noting that habeas corpus petitions regarding custody can be filed in any proper RTC within the judicial region where enforcement is sought.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tujan Militante Vs Cada Deapera

    Uploaded by

    JaylordPataotao
    675 views2 pages
    The RTC of Caloocan City had jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition filed by Raquel Cada-Deapera regarding the custody of her biological daughter, Criselda Cada. While the petitioner Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante resided in Quezon City, both cities are within the same judicial region. Therefore, the writ of habeas corpus issued by the RTC of Caloocan City could be enforced in Quezon City. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts, noting that habeas corpus petitions regarding custody can be filed in any proper RTC within the judicial region where enforcement is sought.

    Original Description:

    Tujan Militante vs Cada Deapera

    Original Title

    Tujan Militante vs Cada Deapera

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The RTC of Caloocan City had jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition filed by Raquel Cada-Deapera regarding the custody of her biological daughter, Criselda Cada. While the petitioner Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante resided in Quezon City, both cities are within the same judicial region. Therefore, the writ of habeas corpus issued by the RTC of Caloocan City could be enforced in Quezon City. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts, noting that habeas corpus petitions regarding custody can be filed in any proper RTC within the judicial region where enforcement is sought.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    675 views2 pages

    Tujan Militante Vs Cada Deapera

    Uploaded by

    JaylordPataotao
    The RTC of Caloocan City had jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition filed by Raquel Cada-Deapera regarding the custody of her biological daughter, Criselda Cada. While the petitioner Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante resided in Quezon City, both cities are within the same judicial region. Therefore, the writ of habeas corpus issued by the RTC of Caloocan City could be enforced in Quezon City. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts, noting that habeas corpus petitions regarding custody can be filed in any proper RTC within the judicial region where enforcement is sought.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

    MA. HAZELINA A. TUJANMILITANTE vs. RAQUEL M. CADA-DEAPERA


    G.R. No. 210636, July 28, 2014

    FACTS:
    On March 24, 2011, respondent Raquel M. Cada-Deapera filed before the RTC
    petition for writ of habeas corpus. In the said petition, respondent demanded the
    immediate issuance of the special writ, directing petitioner Ma. Hazelina Tujan-
    Militante to produce before the court respondent's biological daughter, minor
    Criselda M. Cada and to return to her the custody over the child.
    March 25, 2011, the RTC-Caloocan issued a writ of habeas corpus. Despite
    diligent efforts and several attempts, however, the Sheriff was unsuccessful in
    personally serving petitioner copies of the habeas corpus petition and of the writ.
    Instead the Sheriff left copies of the court processes at petitioner’s Caloocan
    residence, as witnessed by respondent’s counsel and barangay officials.
    March 31, 2011, petitioner filed a Petition for Guardianship over the person of
    Criselda. Respondent filed a Motion to dismiss the petition for guardianship.
    June 3, 2011, respondent filed a criminal case for kidnapping against petitioner.
    On July 12, 2011 the petition for guardianship was dismissed.
    Petitioner moved for the quashal of the writ and the dismissal of the habeas
    corpus petition. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion. On appeal, the CA
    dismissed petitioner’s petition

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition

    RULING:
    YES
    The RTC-Caloocan correctly took cognizance of the habeas corpus petition.
    Subsequently, it acquired jurisdiction over petitioner when the latter was served
    with a copy of the writ in Quezon City.
    Petitioner relied on Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC and maintains that the
    habeas corpus petition should have been filed before the family court that has
    jurisdiction over her place of residence or that of the minor or wherever the minor
    may be found.
    The Court noted that what respondent filed was a petition for the issuance of a
    writ of habeas corpus under Section 20 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC and Rule 102
    of the Rules of Court. 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.

    In the case at bar, respondent filed the petition before the family court of
    Caloocan City. Since Caloocan City and Quezon City both belong to the same
    judicial region, the writ issued by the RTC-Caloocan can still be implemented in
    Quezon City. Whether petitioner resides in the former or the latter is immaterial.
    Accordingly Anent petitioner’s insistence on the application of Section 3 of A.M.
    No. 03-04-04-SC, a plain reading of said provision reveals that the provision
    invoked only applies to petitions for custody of minors, and not to habeas corpus
    petitions.

    Lastly, as regards petitioner’s assertion that the summons was improperly


    served, suffice it to state that service of summons, to begin with, 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. As held in Saulo v. Cruz, a writ of habeas corpus plays a role
    somewhat comparable to a summons, in ordinary civil actions, in that, by service
    of said writ, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.

    You might also like