Santos Sr vs CA (G.R.
113054) The Court also held that his being a soldier is likewise no bar to allowing him custody
FACTS:
Petitioner Leouel Santos, Sr., an army lieutenant, and Julia Bedia a nurse by profession,
were married in Iloilo City in 1986. Their union beget only one child, Leouel Santos, Jr.
who was born July 18, 1987. From the time the boy was released from the hospital
until sometime thereafter, he had been in the care and custody of his maternal
grandparents, private respondents herein, Leopoldo and Ofelia Bedia.
On September 2, 1990, petitioner along with his two brothers, visited the Bedia
household, where three-year old Leouel Jr. was staying. Private respondents contend
that through deceit and false pretensions, petitioner abducted the boy and
clandestinely spirited him away to his hometown in Bacong, Negros Oriental.
The spouses Bedia then filed a "Petition for Care, Custody and Control of Minor Ward
Leouel Santos Jr.," before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, with Santos, Sr. as
respondent. After an ex-parte hearing on October 8, 1990, the trial court issued an
order on the same day awarding custody of the child Leouel Santos, Jr. to his
grandparents, Leopoldo and Ofelia Bedia.
Petitioner appealed this Order to the Court of Appeals. In its decision dated April 30,
1992, respondent appellate court affirmed the trial court's order.
Petitioner assails the decisions of both the trial court and the appellate court to award
custody of his minor son to his parents-inlaw, the Bedia spouses on the ground that
under Art. 214 of the Family Code, substitute parental authority of the grandparents is
proper only when both parents are dead, absent or unsuitable. Petitioner's unfitness,
according to him, has not been successfully shown by private respondents.
ISSUE: Who should properly be awarded custody of the minor Leouel Santos, Jr.
RULING: The minor should be given to the legitimate father. When a parent entrusts
the custody of a minor to another, such as a friend or godfather, even in a document,
what is given is merely temporary custody and it does not constitute a renunciation of
parental authority. Only in case of the parents' death, absence or unsuitability may
substitute parental authority be exercised by the surviving grandparent.
The court held the contentions of the grandparents are insufficient as to remove
petitioner's parental authority and the concomitant right to have custody over the
minor. Private respondents' demonstrated love and affection for the boy,
notwithstanding, the legitimate father is still preferred over the grandparents. The
latter's wealth is not a deciding factor, particularly because there is no proof that at the
present time, petitioner is in no position to support the boy. While petitioner's
previous inattention is inexcusable, it cannot be construed as abandonment. His appeal
of the unfavorable decision against him and his efforts to keep his only child in his
custody may be regarded as serious efforts to rectify his past misdeeds. To award him
custody would help enhance the bond between parent and son.
over the boy. So many men in uniform who are assigned to different parts of the
country in the service of the nation, are still the natural guardians of their children.
Also, petitioner's employment of trickery in spiriting away his boy from his in-laws,
though unjustifiable, is likewise not a ground to wrest custody from him.
Espiritu vs. CA
GR 115640, March 15, 1995
FACTS:
Reynaldo Espiritu and Teresita Masanding began to maintain a common law
relationship of husband while in US. Teresita works as a nurse while Reynaldo was
sent by his empolyer, National Steel Corporation, to Pittsburgh for a temporary
post. They begot a child in 1986 named Rosalind. After a year, they went back to the
Philippines for a brief vacation when they also got married. Subsequently, they had a
second child named Reginald. In 1990, they decided to separate. Reynaldo pleaded for
second chance but instead of Teresita granting it, she left Reynaldo and the children
and went back to California. Reynaldo brought the children in the Philippines and left
them with his sister. When Teresita returned in the Philippines sometime in 1992, he
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Reynaldo and his sister to gain
custody of the children.
ISSUE: WON the custody of the 2 children should be awarded to the mother.
HELD:
In cases of care, custody, education and property of children, the latter’s welfare shall
be the paramount concern and that even a child under 7 years of age may be ordered to
be separated from the mother for compelling reasons. The presumption that the
mother is the best custodian for a child under seven years of age is strong but not
conclusive. At the time the judgment was rendered, the 2 children were both over 7
years of age. The choice of the child to whom she preferred to stay must be
considered. It is evident in the records submitted that Rosalind chose to stay with his
father/aunt. She was found of suffering from emotional shock caused by her mother’s
infidelity. Furthermore, there was nothing in the records to show that Reynaldo is
unfit well in fact he has been trying his best to give the children the kind of attention
and care which their mother is not in the position to extend. On the other hand, the
mother’s conviction for the crime of bigamy and her illicit relationship had already
caused emotional disturbances and personality conflicts at least with the daughter.
Hence, petition was granted. Custody of the minors was reinstated to their father.
 restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such
Sombong v CA G.R. No. 111876. January 31, 1996 restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient.
To justify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, the restraint of liberty must be in the
nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. This is the basic
FACTS:
requisite under the first part of Section 1, Rule 102, of the Revised Rules of Court,
Petitioner was the mother of Arabella O. Sombong who was born on April 23, 1987 in
which provides that “except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas
Taguig, Metro Manila. Sometime in November, 1987, Arabella, then only six months
corpus shall extend to all casesof illegal confinement or detention by which any person
old, was brought to the Sir John Clinic, owned by Ty located at Caloocan City, for
is deprived of his liberty.”
treatment. Petitioner did not have enough money to pay the hospital bill in the balance
In the second part of the same provision, however, Habeas Corpus may be resorted to
of P300.00. Arabella could not be discharged as a result.
in cases where “the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled
Petitioner said that she paid 1,700 for the release even if the bill was only 300. The
thereto.” Thus, although the Writ of Habeas Corpus ought not to be issued if the
spouses Ty, who had custody of the daughter, would not give Arabella to her.
restraint is voluntary, we have held time and again that the said writ is the proper legal
Petitioner filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the issuance
remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of a minor child even if the latter be in
of a Writ of Habeas Corpus against the spouses Ty. She alleged that Arabella was being
the custody of a third person of her own free will.
unlawfully detained and imprisoned at the Ty residence. The petition was denied due
It may even be said that in custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and
course and summarily dismissed, without prejudice, on the ground of lack of
involuntary restraint of liberty is not the underlying rationale for the availability of the
jurisdiction given that the detention was in Caloocan.
writ as a remedy; rather, the writ of habeas corpus is prosecuted for the purpose
Ty claimed that Arabella was with them for some time, but given to someone who
of determining the right of custody over a child.
claimed to be their guardian.
The foregoing principles considered, the grant of the writ in the instant case will all
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Kalookan City, on the basis of petitioner’s
depend on the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the petitioner has the
complaint, filed an information against the spouses Ty for Kidnapping and Illegal
right of custody over the minor; (2) that the rightful custody of the minor is being
Detention of a Minor before the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City. Ty then revealed
withheld from the petitioner by the respondent; and (3) that it is to the best interest of
that the child may be found in quezon city. When Sombong reached the residence, a
the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of the respondent.
small girl named Christina Grace Neri was found. Sombong claimed the child to be hers
1. The evidence adduced before the trial court does not warrant the conclusion
even if she wasn’t entirely sure that it was Arabella.
that Arabella is the same person as Cristina. It will be remembered that, in habeas
On October 13, 1992, petitioner filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas
corpus proceedings, the question of identity is relevant and material, subject to the
Corpus with the Regional Trial Court. The court ruled in Sombong’s favor and ordered
usual presumptions including those as to identity of person.
the respondents to deliver the child.
The ponente noticed that there was no show of emotion on the mother when she met
The Appellate Court took cognizance of the following issues raised by respondent: (1)
her lost daughter.
The propriety of the habeas corpus proceeding vis-a-vis the problem respecting the
Evidence must necessarily be adduced to prove that two persons, initially thought of to
identity of the child subject of said proceeding; (2) If indeed petitioner be the mother of
be distinct and separate from each other, are indeed one and the same. The process is
the child in question, what the effect would proof of abandonment be under the
both logical and analytical.
circumstances of the case; and (3) Will the question of the child’s welfare be the
In the instant case, the testimonial and circumstantial proof establishes the individual
paramount consideration in this case which involves child custody.
and separate existence of petitioner’s child, Arabella, from that of private respondents’
The TC decision was reversed. Hence, this petition.
foster child, Cristina. According to one witness, there were several babies left in the
clinic and it wasn’t certain if Arabella was given to the petitioner.
ISSUE: Is habeas corpus the proper remedy for taking back Arabella?
2. Petitioner has not been established by evidence to be entitled to the custody of the
minor Cristina on account of mistaken identity, it cannot be said that private
HELD: Yes but requisites not met. Petition dismissed.
respondents are unlawfully withholding from petitioner the rightful custody over
Cristina. Moreover, the way the respondents obtained custody isn’t material to the
Ratio:
habeas corpus issue.
In general, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether or not a
3. Private respondents are financially, physically and spiritually in a better position to
particular person is legally held. A prime specification of an application for a writ of
take care of the child, Cristina. They have the best interest of Cristina at heart. On the
habeas corpus, in fact, is an actual and effective, and not merely nominal or moral,
other hand, it is not to the best interest of the minor, Cristina, to be placed in the
illegal restraint of liberty. “The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a
custody of petitioner due top her lack of a stable job and her separation from a married
speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best
man.
and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. A prime specification of
an application for a writ of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. The essential object
and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary