balagtas v. ca

11/20/2015 G.R.No.109073

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/oct1999/gr_109073_1999.html 1/5

TodayisFriday,November20,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.109073October20,1999

EDUARDOBALAGTAS,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,THECEBUCITYPOLICESTATIONSUPERINTENDENT,THESUBSTATIONCOMMANDEROFPARDO,POLICESUBSTATION,CEBUCITY,SPO3FIDELPAYLARAN,ET.AL.,respondents.

PURISIMA,J.:

ThisisaPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65oftheRevisedRulesofCourtassailingtheDecisionoftheCourtofAppeals1 inCAG.R.SPNo. 28155, dated January26, 1993, affirming theDecisionofBranch11, 7th JudicialRegion,RegionalTrialCourtofCebu,dismissing thepetition inSpecialProceedingCaseNo.3328CEB,entitled "In theMatterofthePetitionforHabeasCorpusofRutchelApostol".

Thepertinentfactsareasfollows:

OnNovember18,1991,theofficersofDanaoPoliceStationandPardoSubStationtookRutchelApostolfromthehouseofEduardoBalagtaswithoutanywarrantofarrest.

OnDecember4,1991,thepetitioner,actingonbehalfofRutchelApostol,initiatedspecialproceedingsforhabeascorpus,docketedasSpec.Proc.CaseNo.3328CEBbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofCebuCity.HetheorizedthatsometimeinMay1991,RutchelstartedtoresidewithhiminCebuCitybecauseofherdesiretoundertakespiritualstudiesat theChaitanyaMission.On thesameday, the trialCourt issuedanorderdirecting thepublicrespondentstobringthebodyofRutchelbeforeitonDecember9,1991,at10:40P.M.,andtoshowcausewhyRutchelApostolhadbeendeprivedofherlibertyand/orpetitionerwasdeniedrightfulcustodyofRutchel.1 w p h i1 .n t

OnDecember9,1991,thepublicrespondentsdidnotproducethebodyofRutchelApostol.Asaresult,theTrialCourt issuedanotherOrdergivingthemfive(5)daystosubmittheiroppositiontothepetition,andresettingthehearingtoDecember27,1991,at10:00A.M.

On December 27, 1991, the respondents explained in their Comment that Mrs. Angeles Apostol, Rutchel'smother,soughtpoliceassistancefromtheMetropolitanCommandHeadquartersofthePhilippineNationalPolicetolocateRutchelandthereafter,persuadedhertoreturntotheirhomeinIloiloCity.ShebroughtwithheracopyofapoliceblotterthatRutchellefttheirhomeonAugust15,1991.

Respondingtothesame,therewasconductedapolicesurveillancewhichunearthedthatRutchelwaslivingwiththepetitionerinPardo,CebuCity.Thereat,Mrs.AngelesmetRutcheltalkedtoher,afterwhichthetworeturnedtoIloiloCity.

Meanwhile,thetrialCourtresetthehearingonJanuary14,1992andorderedRutchel'sparentstoproduceherbody but the latter failed to do so. The trial Court then granted Rutchel's parents until February 14, 1992 tocomplywiththedirectivebut,instead,counselforrespondentspresentedatelegramsignedbyDr.GustillostatingthatRutchelwasundergoingpsychiatric treatmentandher conditiondidnot allowher to travel andattend thescheduledhearinginCebuCity.

Thenext thing the trial court didwas toappointNenaR.Buenconsejo,a court personnel, as commissioner todeterminetheveracityofthetelegram.Thesaidcommissionerreported:

...Afterashortwhile,MissRutchelApostolappeared.Frommyobservation,shelookabitpalebutphysicallyhealthy,wellgroomedandveryaccommodating....

11/20/2015 G.R.No.109073


Infewhours,Dr.Gustillo, thepsychiatristarrived.Aftertheamenities,weinformedDr.Gustillowhyweweretherethatday.Thenthequestioningbegun.

TheundersignedaskedMissApostolwhethersheisheldagainstherwillintheirhometowhichsheansweredintheaffirmative.Whenaskedwhethershe'sfreetogoout,shesaidshecanbutonly ifshehasacompanion.Shesaidthatshehasfreedombutnotthefreedomofdoingwhatshewantsandlikestodo.Whenfurtheraskedwhatdoesshewantsandlikestodo.Whenfurtheraskedwhatdoesshelike,beingthereintheirhouseorsomewhereelse,shesaidthatshepreferstheChaitanyaMission.Theundersignedalsoaskedherwhethershe is fit togotoCebuCityandshowherself inCourt on February 28, 1992, the next scheduled hearing, she answered "yes" and she wants to.Whenquestionedwhethersheisundertreatment,shesaid"no".However,thepsychiatristsaidthatshe has been undergoing psychotherapy, a treatmentwhich do not prescribemedicines, but onlydealsinpsychology.Inshort,isjusttalkingwiththepatient,listeningtoherproblemsandideasandintheprocess,advicingandhelpingher.Thepsychiatristcalledthispsychotherapy.Accordingtohimpsychiatry deals in two things, the objective and subjective observations. Miss Rutchel Apostolarguedandinsistedthattherewasnomentionofherbeingundertreatment,thatthepsychiatristismerelyherandhermother'smediator.Butwhenaskedbythedoctortoconfirmtothetruththatsheonce admitted that she suffered depressionwhich sometimesmade her contemplate suicide, sheconfirmedtothetruthofthematterbutqualifiedthatsheiscopingwiththesituation.

At thispoint, theundersignedsought thepsychiatrist'sopiniononMissApostol's fitnessto travel toCebuCityandshowherselfinCourtonFebruary28,1992,thepsychiatristsaidthatasofthattime,hewouldnotadviceher to.However,hesaid that inabout four (4)weeks time fromFebruary22,1992,Ms.Apostolmaydoso.ThepsychiatristbelievesthatMs.Apostolmaynotbeabletocopewiththestressyetbecauseofthedifferentfactorsthatmayensue.

Before the investigationended,Ms.RutchelApostoloffered three(3)conditions tohermotherwhichhermotherrejected,namely:

1.ThatshebeallowedtogotothemissioninCebuforone(1)month

2. That when summer classes will open, she will enroll and be allowed to visit theChaitanyaMissioninIloiloand

3. That after she will finish her college course, she will be left free to go where shepleases.2

OnMarch25,1992, theRegionalTrialCourtoforiginrenderedaDecisiondismissingtheComplaint for lackofcauseofactionsinceithasbeenshownthatRutchelApostolwasunderthecareandcustodyofherparentsandnotbeingillegallydetainedbytherespondents."3

OnAugust11,1992,EduardoBalagtas tookanappeal to theCourtofAppeals,docketedasCAG.R.SP.No.28155,asseverating:

Althoughtheoriginalrespondentswerethepolicemenwhoforcibly tookawayRutchelApostol fromthe ChaitanyaMission, and whom the petitioner believed were in custody of Rutchel Apostol, thepetitionwasdeemedamendedwhenthepolicemenintheircommenttothepetitionallegedthatitistheparentsofRutchelApostolwhoarenowinactualcustodyofRutchelApostolandtheparentsofRutchelApostoladmittedthattheyareincustodyofRutchelApostolandsubmittedthemselvestothejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourtbyallowingtheCommissionerappointedbythisHonorableCourttoexamineRutchelApostolintheirhouseinIloiloCity.

xxxxxxxxx

ItistobestressedthatsinceRutchelApostolisnow19yearsofage,shehasnowreachedtheageofmajorityandisnowemancipatedfromparentalcontrol:

Art. 234. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority. Unless otherwiseprovided,majoritycommencesattheageofeighteenyears.

SinceRutchelApostolhasreachedtheageofmajority,theparentsofRutchelApostolcannotkeepherintheircustodyagainstherwill:

xxxxxxxxx

In a case, the petitioner asked forwrit ofhabeas corpus to return his daughter,who had alreadyreachedtheageofmajority,toherparentalhomewhichsheleftwithouthisconsentasfathernorthe

11/20/2015 G.R.No.109073


consent of her mother. In denying the application, the Supreme Court held: There can be noquestionthatparentalauthority,whichincludestherighttocustody,terminatesuponachildreachingthe age of majority, at which age the child acquires the right, power and privilege to control hisperson (articles 314 and 137, Civil Code). This right to control one's person includes the right tochoosea separateplaceof residenceand thepersons inwhose companyhedesires to live.Thefreedomisincompatiblewithcustodynoonecanbesaidtohavefreedomtocontrolhispersonandat the same timecontinue subject to someone's custody.Ashabeas corpus applies only in caseswhere the rightful custody of a person is denied to another (section 1,Rule 102,Rules ofCourt),petitionerhereinwouldbeentitled theretoonly if theright tocustodyofhisdaughter is reservedtohimbylaw.1 w p h i1 .n t

Emancipationbymajorityisalwaysabsoluteastoone'spersonthereisnoprovisioninthelawthatlimitsitinanycase.Article317referstocontroloverproperty.Article321isnotanexceptiontotheeffects of emancipation by attainment of the age of majority it is a limitation of the right of anemancipateddaughter to leavethehomeofherparents ifshe is livingwith them, in the interestofpublicdecorum (2Manresa, 786787). It can not, therefore, be said that the daughter, who aftermajoritycontinuestolivewithherparents,remainsunderherparentscustody.Therighttofreedomandcontrolofone'spersonisanaturalrightnolimitationtheretocanbeimposedorinferred,exceptbyexpressprovisionoflaw.Theprohibitionfordaughtersfromleavingtheirparentalhomes,iftheyliveincompanywiththeirparents,isalimitationofanaturalrightandcannotbeenlargedbeyonditsvery limitedscope itcannotbeextendedby interpretation intoasortofparentalauthoritywith itscorrespondingconcomitantofcustody.Custodyendswithemancipation,andthemerefactthatshemayhavelivewiththemcannotbeconsideredasacontinuationofrevivalofthecustody,whichhaddefinitely terminated upon her emancipation. (VB, Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court In thePhilippines,696citingDyPicov.Ricardo,47O.G.5232)

TheparentsofRutchelApostolshouldbeorderedtodischargeRutchelApostolfromtheircustody:

Whenprisonerdischargedifnoappeal.Whenthecourtor judgehasexamined intothe cause of the caption and restraint of the prisoner, and is satisfied that he isunlawfully imprisoned or restrained, he shall forthwith order his discharge fromconfinement,butsuchdischargeshallnotbeeffectiveuntilacopyoftheorderhasbeenservedon theofficerorpersondetaining theprisonerdoesnotdesire toappeal, (sic)thepetitionershallbeforthwithrelease.(Section15,Rule102).4

OnJanuary26,1993,theFifthDivisionoftheCourtofAppealscameoutwithaDecision5affirming theDecisionbelow,ratiocinatingasfollows:

. . . Petitioner has failed to establish a cause of action against the respondent members of thePhilippineNationalPoliceoftheDanaoPoliceStationandthePARDOSubStation,CebuCityPoliceStation.There isnoshowing that respondentseverdetainedorare restrainingRutchelApostol, inwhosebehalf thepetitionforhabeascorpus ispurportedly filed. It is theburdenof thepetitioner tosubstantiate by clear and convincing evidence that Rutchel is under the custody or is unlawfullydetainedandrestrainedofher libertybytherespondents.Petitioner'sevidencefailedtoprovethisandthepetitionshouldbedismissed(Ngayaanvs.Balweg,200SCRA149).

In this case, respondents presented themother ofRutchelApostol,whoaffirmed in court that therespondentsmerelyrespondedtoherrequestforassistanceinlocatingherdaughter,whovoluntarilyreturnedhomewithhertoIloiloCityonthedaythatshewaslocated.AlthoughtheCommissioner'sreporttendstoshowthatshestillwishestojointheChaitanyaMissioninCebuCityandthatsheispresentlyinthehouseofherparents,wheresheisnotfreetodowhatshewantsandlikestodo,theparents are not named as respondents in this case. The fact that the mother Angeles Apostol,testified in behalf of herein respondents does not make the parents a party to this specialproceeding,norjustifytheissuanceofanorderdirectedagainstpartiesnotproperlyimpleaded.Thethrust of the petitioner's complaint is that Rutchel Apostol was forcibly taken and abducted onNovember 18, 1991 and that respondents continue to detain her at the Pardo Police Substationand/or Danao Police Station. The essential allegations of the petition were not proven, and thepetitionwascorrectlydismissed.6

Undaunted, the petitioner found hisway to thisCourt via the presentPetition forCertiorari, assigning as loneerror,that:

THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION ON THE GROUND OFTECHNICALITY THAT THEMOTHEROF RUTCHEL APOSTOLWHO IS ILLEGALLY DETAININGHERWASNOTFORMALLYIMPLEADEDASARESPONDENTINTHISCASE.7

11/20/2015 G.R.No.109073


Thepetitionisnotimpressedwithmerit.

Tobeginwith,habeascorpusembracessobroadadimension.Inonecase,thisCourtheldthat:

. . .habeas corpus, aside from being thorough and complete, affords prompt relief from unlawfulimprisonmentofanykind,andunderallcircumstances.. . .(Cf.PeopleexrelLivingstonvs.Wyatt,186N.Y.38379N.E.330)(PepitoLaoAlfonsoet.al.,v.MirtinianoVivo,March31,1966,G.R.No.L20801,16SCRA510,517)

However,explicitisthefollowingprovisionoftheRevisedRulesofCourt:

Sec.2,Rule3.Arealparty in interest is thepartywhostands tobebenefitedor injuredby thejudgmentinthesuit,orthepartyentitledtotheavailsofthesuit.Unlessotherwiseauthorizedbylawor these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party ininterest.

ThetrialCourtdidnotacquirejurisdictionoverthepersonofRutchel'smother(Mrs.AngelesApostol)sinceshewasnotimpleadedasdefendantandneitherdidsheinterveneinthecaseasrequiredbytheRules.Nojudgmentcouldbepronouncedagainstherotherwise,shewouldbedeprivedoftherudimentsofdueprocess.

Petitionerhasnocauseofactionagainstherandtherefore,therespondentCourtcorrectlydismissedthePetition.Ifthesuitisnotbroughtinthenameoforagainsttherealpartyininterest,amotiontodismissmaybefiledonthegroundthattheComplaintstatesnocauseofaction(Sec.1(g),Rule16).Therespondentssufficientlyexplainedthat they conducted police surveillance andmerely acted upon the directive of the PNP officials who, in turn,performedtheirdutiesasrequestedbyRutchel'smother.

Arealpartyininterestisthepartywhocouldbebenefitedorinjuredbythejudgmentorthepartyentitledtotheavailsofthesuit.

Thentoo,inBautistav.Barredo,et.al.,G.R.No.20653,April30,1965,13SCRA744,746,theCourtheld:

IndismissingthecaseagainstdefendantJoseM.BarredothecourtaquotooktheviewthathecouldnotbeimpleadedonthebasisofthejudgmentrenderedinCivilCaseNo.1636forthereasonthathewasnotaparty thereinupon the theory "thatanactionon the judgmentcannotbemaintainedagainstonenotapartyornotboundbyit....

InFilipina Ind.Corp.,etal.v.SanDiego,G.R.No.22347,May27,1968, itwasheld that the foregoing rule ismandatory.Again,inanothercase,theCourtruledthus:

. . . and asAyala yCia, Alfonso Zobel and theDizonswere the only ones impleaded as partiesdefendants,thejudgmentwasmadeeffectiveexclusivelyagainstthem....(Republicv.AyalayCia,et.al,G.R.L20950,May31,1965)

AssumingarguendothatthemotherofRutchelwasimpleaded,stillthepetitionerfailedtosubstantiatethepetitionforhabeascorpus.ThefactsclearlyindicatethatRutchelisonherrightmind,nottomentionherbeingoneofthetopnotchersintheMidwiferyLicensureExaminationgivenbytheProfessionalRegulationsCommission.Shewasnotforciblydetainedorabductedbyhermother,thefactbeingthatshevoluntarilywentwithhermotherafterthelatterpersuadedhertoreturntotheirhomeinIloiloCity.Therewasnoamountofforceemployedonher,whichwouldamounttodeprivationofliberty.

Inlightoftheattendantcircumstancesatbar,theCourtdeemsitunnecessarytopassupontheotherquestionsraisedbypetitioner.1 w p h i1 .n t

WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDISMISSEDforlackofmerit,andtheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SP No. 28155 affirming the Decision of Branch 11 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu AFFIRMED. Nopronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.

Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Melo,Puno,Vitug,Mendoza,Panganiban,Pardo,Buena,GonzagaReyesandDeLeon,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

Bellosillo,Kapunan,QuisumbingandYnaresSantiago,JJ.,areonofficialleave.

Footnotes

1PennedbyJusticeMinervaGonzagaReyesandconcurredbyJusticesLuisA.JavellanaandConsueloYnaresSantiago,concurring.

11/20/2015 G.R.No.109073


2Annex,"A",Petition,S.P.CaseNo.3328CEB,p.2,Rollo,p.22.

3Annex"B",Petition,pennedbyJudgeRodolfoN.Bellafor,p.3,Rollo,p.25.

4Petitioner'sMemorandum,pp.810,Rollo,pp.3335.

5CAG.R.SPNo.28155,p.4,Rollo,p.40.

6CADecision,pp.34,Rollo,pp.3940.

7Petition,p.10Rollo,p.12.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

balagtas v. ca

Documents