KRISTEEN RHOSE A. TAN, PETITIONER, VS. LORENZE RAYMOND T. REYES, PRIVATE RESPONDENT,

Tan versus Reyes

The Case

This is a petition for annulment of judgment filed with the Supreme Court by Kristeen Rhose Tan against Lorenze Raymond Reyes. Kristeen is the mother of an illegitimate child, Noelle Ana Loreen, and Lorenze is the father who acknowledged the child in her birth certificate. While Kristeen was working abroad as a nurse, Lorenze brought a petition for custody of the child, impleading only the grandparents with whom the child was staying and not Kristeen herself. The trial court awarded custody to Lorenze. Kristeen now asks the Supreme Court to annul that judgment on the ground that it was rendered without jurisdiction over her as an indispensable party. The case matters because it settles the rule that the mother of an illegitimate child holds sole parental authority and custody, and that she must be impleaded in any custody proceeding concerning her child, her physical absence abroad notwithstanding.

Procedural History

Lorenze filed a Petition for Custody of the minor Noelle before the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region of Tarlac City, Branch 65. The trial court issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the grandparents, Philip and Rosario Tan, to produce the child. After several hearings, the trial court rendered its Decision dated 25 September 2013, awarding custody of the child to Lorenze. Philip and Rosario filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment on the ground of excusable negligence, then moved to withdraw it as moot and academic because Kristeen had filed a separate action before the Supreme Court and had decided to stay permanently in the country. Kristeen then filed with the Supreme Court this Amended Petition for Annulment of Judgment, raising the solitary issue of whether the assailed Decision may be declared null and void.

Facts

Kristeen Rhose Tan gave birth to Noelle Ana Loreen out of wedlock on 27 February 2009. Lorenze Raymond Reyes acknowledged in the child's birth certificate that he is her father. In July 2011, Kristeen obtained work in Saudi Arabia as a nurse. While she was abroad, Noelle stayed with Kristeen's parents, the spouses Philip and Rosario Tan, and Lorenze was allowed to visit and take the child on weekends whenever he would fetch her.

Sometime in 2013, Lorenze complained that Philip and Rosario were preventing him from seeing or visiting his daughter. He then filed a Petition for Custody of the minor, praying that custody be awarded to him in accordance with Article 212 of the Family Code and in view of the absence of the mother, without prejudice to joint parental authority whenever the mother is present in the country. Kristeen was not impleaded as a party.

The trial court issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the grandparents to produce the child, held several hearings, and rendered its Decision awarding custody to Lorenze. Kristeen then filed this petition for annulment of judgment, asserting that the child is illegitimate, that sole parental authority is exercised by the mother under Article 176 of the Family Code, that she is an indispensable party who was not impleaded, and that the private respondent's right is limited to visitorial rights.

Issues

• Whether or not the Decision dated 25 September 2013 may be declared null and void for having been rendered without jurisdiction over an indispensable party.
• Whether or not the mother of an illegitimate child, who was abroad at the time the custody petition was filed, is an indispensable party who must be impleaded in the custody proceedings.

Applicable Provisions

Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 9255, provides:

Article 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father. Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child.

This provision is the core of the case: it vests parental authority over illegitimate children in the mother, and from that authority flows the right of custody that made Kristeen an indispensable party.

Article 212 of the Family Code provides:

Article 212. In case of absence or death of either parent, the parent present shall continue exercising parental authority. The remarriage of the surviving parent shall not affect the parental authority over the children, unless the court appoints another person to be the guardian of the person or property of the children.

This is the provision the private respondent relied upon in claiming custody during the mother's absence, and the Court rejected its application to an illegitimate child whose mother holds sole parental authority.

Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action. The Court used this definition to characterize Kristeen as an indispensable party whose non-inclusion rendered the proceedings void.

Ruling

The Court granted the petition. On the first issue, it held that the assailed Decision is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over an indispensable party. Parental authority over illegitimate children is bestowed on the mother, and since parental authority is given to the mother, custody over the minor child also goes to the mother, unless she is shown to be unfit. The custody of Noelle therefore legally belongs to Kristeen, and she should have been impleaded in the proceedings below.

On the second issue, the Court held that Kristeen's absence abroad did not justify her exclusion. Her absence blows no hole in her status as an indispensable party; all the more reason, the Court said, that the respondent should not pull a fast one on her simply because she was abroad. The law categorically gives her custody over the child, and she should therefore be informed of and included in all actions which could affect the child's well-being. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Arcelona versus Court of Appeals:

The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires, of course, the joinder of all necessary parties where possible, and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power. It is precisely when an indispensable party is not before the court that the action should be dismissed. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.

The Court also held that the petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court was the proper remedy. Where the petition is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent or over the nature or subject of the action, the petitioner need not allege that new trial, reconsideration, or appeal is no longer available through no fault of his own, precisely because a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed at any time, unless barred by laches.

Doctrine

Parental authority over illegitimate children is vested in the mother under Article 176 of the Family Code, and custody follows parental authority unless the mother is shown to be unfit. The mother of an illegitimate child is an indispensable party in any custody proceeding concerning that child, and her physical absence abroad does not strip her of that status. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction over an indispensable party may be annulled under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, and the petitioner need not show that the ordinary remedies of new trial, reconsideration, or appeal are no longer available, because such a void judgment may be assailed at any time unless barred by laches.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled and set aside the Decision dated 25 September 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, Branch 65, which had awarded custody of the minor to Lorenze Reyes.

Remember This

Memorize this line: parental authority over an illegitimate child belongs to the mother, custody follows that authority, and she is an indispensable party whose absence voids the custody proceedings. Examiners use this case to test the mother's sole parental authority under Article 176, the definition of an indispensable party under Section 7, Rule 3, and the availability of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 for lack of jurisdiction.