**Facts:**
Edwin and Lourdes Tribiana, legally married, lived together from 1996 and formalized their union in 1997. In April 1998, Lourdes filed a habeas corpus petition against Edwin for taking their daughter, Khriza, claiming Edwin deprived her of Khriza’s custody. It emerged that Edwin’s mother, Rosalina, held Khriza. Edwin moved to dismiss the petition for failure to allege that earnest efforts at a compromise were made before filing, as required by Article 151 of the Family Code. Lourdes countered by presenting a Barangay Certification to File Action, indicating attempts at a compromise. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied Edwin’s motion to dismiss, prompting Edwin to appeal to the Court of Appeals via a petition for prohibition and certiorari under Rule 65, which was denied. Edwin then sought relief from the Supreme Court.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in not dismissing the habeas corpus petition for failing to comply with the condition precedent of earnest efforts at a compromise under Article 151 of the Family Code.
2. Whether the barangay conciliation requirement under Section 412 of the Local Government Code applies to habeas corpus proceedings.
**Court’s Decision:**
The Supreme Court dismissed Edwin’s petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held Lourdes had complied with the condition precedent by attaching the Barangay Certification, which Edwin did not dispute. It further clarified that the failure to allege effort at compromise in the petition is curable by amendment without dismissing the action, emphasizing the liberal approach courts should adopt in adding or correcting pleadings to determine the merits of the case expeditiously.
The Court also underscored the paramount concern in habeas corpus proceedings involving a child of tender age is the child’s welfare, not legal technicalities.
Additionally, the Court agreed with the appellate court that Section 412 of the Local Government Code expressly exempts petitions for habeas corpus from barangay conciliation requirements, affirming the immediate resort to court in deprivation of personal liberty cases.
**Doctrine:**
1. **Effort at Compromise:** Filing a habeas corpus petition requires the demonstration of earnest efforts at compromise among family members, as stated in Article 151 of the Family Code. However, failure to allege such efforts is not grounds for outright dismissal but can be rectified by amendment of the petition.
2. **Exemption from Barangay Conciliation:** Habeas corpus proceedings are exempt from the barangay conciliation process required under Section 412 of the Local Government Code when it concerns deprivation of personal liberty.
**Class Notes:**
– **Condition Precedent (Article 151, Family Code):** No suit between family members shall proceed without showing earnest efforts towards a compromise, except cases not subject to compromise under the Civil Code.
– **Barangay Conciliation (Section 412, Local Government Code):** Specifies cases exempt from barangay conciliation, including petitions for habeas corpus.
– **Amendment of Pleadings (Section 1, Rule 10, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure):** Pleadings may be amended to correct a failure to state a condition precedent, aimed at resolving the real issues.
– **Child Custody (Article 213, Family Code):** Protects children under seven from separation from the mother, unless compelling reasons exist.
– **Habeas Corpus (Rule 102, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure):** Can be used when a person’s rightful custody is withheld from someone entitled to it.
**Historical Background:**
This case illustrates the judiciary’s balancing act between adherence to procedural requirements and ensuring the welfare of a child of tender age. It reflects the legal framework’s sensitivity to familial disputes, emphasizing the child’s best interest over strict procedural formalities. This approach is coherent with the Philippine legal system’s family-oriented principles and the state’s policy of protecting children’s rights and welfare.
Leave a Reply