A and B had a child, C. The couple later separated but maintained a shared custodial arrangement over C. An instance arose when C was not returned by A to B. As all her efforts to get C were futile, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the trial court.

At the scheduled pretrial hearing, all parties, including the parents of A, the father of C, were present. The judge, however, called only A and B to a conference, to the exclusion of the others. At the conference, the parties entered into an agreement on the custody of C. Because of this, the court considered the case closed and terminated.

Thereafter, A’s side moved for reconsideration, asking for a full-blown trial. The court denied their plea, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court partially granted their prayer by remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings, but at the same time held that the agreement was a provisional order on custody.

A’s side brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The issue the High Court was tasked to resolve was whether the compromise agreement could be considered a provisional order on the child’s custody.

The Supreme Court thus decreed that “to regulate a party’s availment of habeas corpus writs as a means of recovering child custody, the Court promulgated A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, or the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors, on 22 April 2003.

“The grant of the writ in the instant case will all depend on the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor; (2) that the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondent; and (3) that it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not of respondent.

“A person having rightful custody over a minor, but allegedly being deprived thereof, may file a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Family Court. The Family Court shall then decide the issue on the custody of minors upon the return of the writ of habeas corpus. This is because a petition for habeas corpus is essentially prosecuted to determine who has rightful custody over the child, and not merely to produce the child before the court.

“The Family Court may then issue a provisional order awarding custody after an answer has been filed or after the expiration of the period to file it, and can render judgment awarding custody of the minor to the proper party after trial. Here, the respondent filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus before the trial court. The trial court then issued a writ of habeas corpus requiring petitioners to appear and bring C to court on 5 May 2021.

“Upon the return of the writ on 5 May 2021, the presiding judge: (1) called respondent and petitioner A to his chamber for a preliminary conference; (2) issued the order incorporating the compromise agreement of petitioner A and respondent regarding C’s custody; and (3) declared the case closed and terminated. The Court of Appeals thereafter upheld the validity of the compromise agreement between petitioner A and respondent; deemed the 5 May 2021 order a provisional order awarding custody; and directed the trial court to immediately proceed with the hearing of this case.

“This Court, however, finds that the Court of Appeals acted contrary to existing rules and jurisprudence when it deemed ‘the terms of the agreement regarding the custody of the minor, as stated in the 5 May 2021 order,’ as constituting a provisional order awarding custody of a minor and, as such, directed the agreement’s immediate implementation. (To be continued)