REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
MANILA, BRANCH ______

JUAN SANTOS DELA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

- versus - SP.PROC.No. ______________

For: HABEAS CORPUS WITH
PRAYER FOR CUSTODY AND
JOINT PARENTAL AUTHORITY;

JANE DOE-DELA CRUZ,

Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------x

PETITION

PETITIONER, by counsel respectfully alleges that:

1. Petitioner Juan Santos Dela Cruz (hereafter referred to as

“Petitioner” for brevity) is of legal age, Filipino, married and with
residential address at ____________________________, Manila.

2. Respondent Jane Doe-Dela Cruz (hereafter referred to as

“Respondent” for brevity)is likewise Filipino, of legal age, married and
with residential address at __________________________________,
where she may be served with summons and processes from the
Honorable Court.

3. Petitioner and Respondent are spouses, having been

married under Catholic rites on February 14, 2004 at the San Agustin
Church, Manila.

A copy of the parties’ Certificate of Marriage is hereto attached

as Annex “A” and made an integral part hereof.

4. Petitioner and Respondent begot two children, namely

John Paul, 5 years old, having been born on October 1, 2009 and
George Ringgo, 2 years old, having been born on September 1, 2012.

Copies of the children’s Certificates of Live Birth are hereto

attached as Annexes “B” and “C”, respectively, and made integral
parts hereof.
 5. Petitioner and the Respondent met sometime in the month
of May in 2002, where they were both students taking up a course in
Engineering in Alabang University. When they transferred to Korea
University in 2003 to pursue a more advanced course inChemical
Engineering, Petitioner and Respondent became roommates.
Although they were not exclusively dating at that time, the two became
intimate, as they were spending a lot of time together.

6. Sometime at the end of 2003, the two found out that the
Respondent was pregnant. Although the Petitioner realized the shame
that the Respondent will endure as soon as the news that she got
pregnant out of wedlock comes out, Petitioner himself was confused
because he could not know for sure if he was the father of the child,
since the Respondent was dating and was having pre-marital sex with
other men at that time. Not knowing what to do, the Respondent went
back to the Philippines. Thereafter, the Petitioner, still confused by the
situation,followed and likewise came home.

7. Back in the Philippines, meetings were had between the

families of the Petitioner and the Respondent. In order to keep the
peace between both their families, Petitioner and the Respondent
finally decided to get married.

8. Since the time of their marriage, the Respondent has

always been a supportive father to their children, providing his family
with a comfortable life by working as the Vice-President for Marketing
of Manila Projects Corporation. Although charged with the task of being
the provider in the family, the Respondent still sees to it that he spends
the necessary quality time with their children. There was even a time
that the Petitioner braved heavy storm and flood just to come home in
time to have dinner with the children and spend quality time with them.

9. The Respondent on the other hand, struggled to adjust to

married life. She unforgivingly maintains a carefree disposition and
prioritizes her friends and social life over her family. In the process,
Respondent has failed to take good care of their children. Worse,
Respondent has neglected the children’s health and well-being and
even exposed the children to life-threatening situations.

10. The Respondent often leaves the children alone with little
and at times without adult supervision. The children are mere toddlers
and accidents are bound to happen when they are left alone, even for
just a brief period of time.

a. Sometime in the latter part of 2011, the Respondent

went to the house of Petitioner’s mother bringing with her their
youngest child, George Ringgo. However, she left their oldest
son, John Paul, with the maid inside their car, while it was parked

2
in front of the house of Petitioner’s mother, with the windows
closed and with no air-conditioning. For some reason, the maid
left the car, leaving John Paul, all alone inside, without adult
supervision. Thus, John Paul almost suffocated, so much so that
the child, only 2 years old at that time, was madly banging the
car in order to get out of it. It was then that the Petitioner’s
sistersaw John Paul, and opened the car finding the child soaked
in sweat and gasping for breath.

b. On another occasion, the Petitioner’s mother saw

George Ringgo playing all alone by the window at the third floor
of their house. Upon checking, Petitioner’s mother discovered
that the door of the fire escape, which was next to the spot where
the young boywas playing, did not have any lock, placing him in
grave danger of falling, had he accidentally pushed said door.

c. In another incident, Respondent left John Paul alone

inside the bathroom where he was taking a bath. The child
slipped and bumped his head causing a huge swelling.
Respondent did not even bring John Paul to the hospital to have
him checked for any internal injuries. Instead, Respondent kept
the incident secret from the Petitioner and it was only when the
Petitioner noticed the swelling on his son’s head did he know of
the incident. Even then, the Respondent refused to bring the
child to a hospital for an X-Ray Examination and insists that the
swelling would heal naturally. In a similar incident, the second
child, George Ringgo, was also left alone playing in the
bathroom. Seconds later, the child got his fingers squeezed by
the door, causing bruising and discoloration for months.

d. When they sleep at night, their children would often

sleep in between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The
Respondent would always wake up and leave her side of the bed
without any buffer or safeguard to prevent the children from
falling off the bed to the floor. The Petitioner always reprimanded
the Respondent telling her to put at least a cushion to prevent
the children from falling or wake him up so he could be the one
to put the necessary safeguard. The requests fell on deaf ears
and the Respondent refused to change her ways. As a result,
both children have had experience falling off the bed at least
once, and in one instance, two consecutive falling incidents
occurred in the same week. Petitioner then just placed a rocking
chair on Respondent’s side of the bed to prevent the children
from falling off the bed.

e. The Respondent has been so neglectful and

inattentive that the teat of the feeding bottle of George RInggo
has had a huge cut for some time before it has been discovered.

3
 This could have caused asphyxiation to a feeding toddler
because of the milk that spurts out of the huge cut. It may even
cause choking in the event that the child finally bites off the cut
teat.

11. The Respondent does not care if the children sleep or eat
on time or if they are getting enough sleep or proper nutrition. She
spends so much time chatting in the internet or watching television or
hanging out with her friends that she neglects to perform her
obligations to her children.

a. Respondent would always keep to her room, in front

of the computer, chatting with her friends. This has been
Respondent’s routine, so much so, that she often neglects
feeding their children on time. The children would always eat past
meal times because she is too busy to be bothered.

b. Respondent also fails to pick up John Paul from prep-

school on time. While John Paul’s class ends by 1:30 in the
afternoon, Respondent would pick him up by 2:30 pm,
sometimes, even much later, all because Respondent spends
too much time chatting with her friends. In one instance,
Respondent even totally forgot to pick John Paul up from school
and it was only when Petitioner’s sister noticed at around 4:30 in
the afternoon that the child was not yet home did they realize that
he was still in school and the Respondent forgot to pick him up.

c. Worse, the Respondent refuses to pack lunch or

even snacks for John Paulwhen he goes to school, her reason
being that he would no longer eat at home if he eats in school.
Although the Petitioner would buy biscuits or sandwiches for
John Paul to bring to school, Respondent refuses to pack John
Paul’s “baon” in the morning and insists that he should eat at
home instead.

d. The Respondent also deprives their children of much

needed sleep as she would normally read a book at night before
going to sleep. She does not care that she keeps the light on
inside the room disrupting the sleep of the children.

e. As if the children are not deprived of sleep enough,

Respondent would even bring the children to her social
gatherings, whenever she goes out with her friends, exposing
them to harmful elements present in an adult environment such
as parties. Respondent also refuses to go home early from these
parties further depriving her children the much needed rest and
sleep necessary for the children’s growth and development. She

4
 would often go home from these parties by midnight or even past
midnight.

12. The Respondent also refuses to give the children the

proper medical attention necessary to ensure their proper
development. She rationalizes that any sickness or injury that the
children may have will heal naturally.

a. The Respondent was so much a believer of natural

methods of healing that she refuses to apply even common
medication when the children would get sick, not even when the
child is burning with fever. In fact the Respondent refused to get
the children vaccine for immunization and it was only when the
Petitioner and the Respondent had a huge fight over it that the
Respondent was forced to have the children vaccinated.

b. There was also an occasion when the younger child,

George Ringgo suffered from extreme rashes. Despite the pitiful
appearance of the child who was then covered by rashes all over
his body and very irritable and restless due to the itch caused by
the rashes, Respondent, once more insists that the same would
subside and heal naturally. Since the Petitioner could not stand
seeing his child like this, he brought him to the dermatologist who
right away noted that the allergy of the child was so extreme that
the skin was literally “crying out loud” for help.

13. Finally, the Respondent’s lack oflove and care for her
children is manifested by her failure to take time out to teach and
educate her children during their cognitive years. She would lock
herself inside the office room in the third floor so that the children could
not bother her.

a. Respondent would delegate the task of teaching the

children basic lessons and skills to the maids even though the
maids themselves lacked training.

b. In fact, since the Respondent took the children with

her last year, the children have stopped schooling because the
Respondent is too busy and too lazy to bring the children to
school.

14. What is apparent is that, since the marriage, the

Respondent refuses to change her lifestyle for the children, or for
family life for that matter. She expects the children to adjust to her
lifestyle even if it means sleep deprivation, undernourishment and poor
mental and psychological growth. The environment that the
Respondent has created for her children is overly inimical to their
health and well-being that the best interests of both children are best

5
served if they stay with the Petitioner, with temporary visitational rights
from the Respondent.

15. The Petitioner and the Respondent admittedly married in

haste. But while the Petitioner has taught himself to accept the
situation and adjust to married life and to being a family man, the
Respondent continued to maintain a single and carefreelife, prioritizing
mostly her personal and selfish interests, instead those of her children.
It is as if, she refuses to recognize and perform her responsibilities as
a mother.

16. Due to Respondent’s extreme obsession for chatting over

the internet, Petitioner suspected that Respondent was engaging in
extra-marital affairs. He would often get jealous and they often fight
about it. While the Petitioner is adamant that they should not fight in
front of the children, Respondent would most of the time start a fight
for the children to see, which, needless to say, causes emotional scars
on the children.

17. Respondent, on many occasions, threatened to leave the

house because of their constant fights over Respondent’s extra-marital
activities and on how to raise their children properly. Then, on
November 1, 2013, while the Petitioner was at the cemetery, the
Respondent decided to leave the household for good, bringing the two
children with her.

18. Since then, Respondent had forbidden Petitioner from

seeing their common children. On June 12, 2014, the Petitioner, with
his mother, went to Respondent’s house in Makati to see the children.
In the brief moment that the Petitioner saw his children, he noticed right
away that their youngest child had scratches on his face which had
scarred already. Petitioner surmised that this was caused by the harsh
way that the Respondent normally treats their children, especially so
since the Respondent has long nails and refuses to cut them.

19. It was then clear that the Respondent wishes to deprive the
Petitioner of his right to the care and custody over the children. In fact,
had he not stood his ground and insisted on seeing his children that
day, the Respondent would not allow him see his children. Respondent
even called security guards to make sure that the Petitioner does not
take the children away. The Respondent claims that since she is the
mother of the children, the latter should stay only with her.

20. Article 211 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides

that, “the father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental
authority over the persons of their common children.” Parents’ right
to custody over their children is likewise enshrined in law. Article 220
of the Family Code provides that parents and individuals exercising

6
parental authority over their unemancipated children are entitled,
among other rights, “to keep them in their company.” In legal
contemplation, the true nature of the parent-child relationship
encompasses much more than the implication of ascendancy of one
and obedience by the other. As explained by the Supreme Court in
the case of Santos, Sr. v. Court of Appeals1, to wit:

“The right of custody accorded to parents springs from the

exercise of parental authority. Parental authority or patria
potestas in Roman Law is the juridical institution whereby
parents rightfully assume control and protection of their
unemancipated children to the extent required by the
latter’s needs. It is a mass of rights and obligations
which the law grants to parents for the purpose of the
children’s physical preservation and development, as
well as the cultivation of their intellect and the
education of their heart and senses. As regards
parental authority, “there is no power, but a task; no
complex of rights, but a sum of duties; no sovereignty
but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor.”
(Emphasis supplied)

21. Thus, parental authority and responsibility are

inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced except in
cases authorized by law. The right attached to parental authority,
being purely personal, the law allows a waiver of parental authority only
in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a children’s home
or an orphan institution.2

22. Evidently, Petitioner has been unjustly and unlawfully

deprived by Respondent of his vested right of parental authority over
histwo children and has been ruthlessly deprived of his children’s
company.

23. Thus, in view of the above-mentioned circumstances,

Petitioner should immediately be allowed to have the company of their
common children and to have their custody to make up for the time he
had been deprived of their company. The Honorable Court should
likewise order that the parties equally share parental authority and
custody over their minor children.

24. The Respondent has the means and the capacity to bring
the children out of the country to the extreme prejudice of, and injustice,
to herein Petitioner. It is thus prayed that the Honorable Court
immediately issue a Hold Departure Order to prevent either of the

1G.R. No. 113054, March 16, 1995.

2Tonog vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122906, February 7, 2002.

7
parties from bringing the children out of the country without the consent
of the other parent and the Honorable Court.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully

prays that the Honorable Court:

1. Issue an Order to the Respondent to bring the minor

children John Paul Dela Cruz and George Ringgo Dela Cruz to this
Honorable Court at the hour and date to be set by this Honorable Court
and, that immediately thereafter, order that the custody of the minor be
turned over to herein Petitioner to allow him to make up for the lost
time with his children.

2. Issue an Order awarding custody of their children to the

Petitioner, with regular visitational rights to the Respondent, or
directing the Respondent to allow Petitioner equal parental authority
over their minor children.

3. Issue a Hold Departure Order addressed to the Bureau of

Immigration and Deportation, directing it not to allow the departure of
John Paul Dela Cruz and George RinggoDela Cruzfrom the Philippines
without the permission of the Petitioner and this Honorable Court.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise
prayed for.

Makati City for Manila, October 13, 2014 .