JOEY D. BRIONES, Petitioner, vs. MARICEL P. MIGUEL, FRANCISCA P. MIGUEL, and LORETA P. MIGUEL, Respondents.
JOEY D. BRIONES, Petitioner, vs. MARICEL P. MIGUEL, FRANCISCA P. MIGUEL, and LORETA P. MIGUEL, Respondents.
Whether or not the natural father be denied the custody and parental care of his own child?
RULING:
No. Article 176 of the Family Code of the Philippines12 explicitly provides that “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.” This is the rule regardless of whether the father admits paternity. Parental authority over recognized natural
children who were under the age of majority was vested in the father or the mother recognizing them. If both
acknowledge the child, authority was to be exercised by the one to whom it was awarded by the courts; if it was
awarded to both, the rule as to legitimate children applied where in this case, parental authority resided jointly in the
father and the mother. On David v. Court of Appeals23 held that the recognition of an illegitimate child by the father
could be a ground for ordering the latter to give support to, but not custody of, the child. The law explicitly confers to
the mother sole parental authority over an illegitimate child; it follows that only if she defaults can the father assume
custody and authority over the minor. Of course, the putative father may adopt his own illegitimate child;24 in such a
case, the child shall be considered a legitimate child of the adoptive parent. Thhere is no doubt respondent mother has
the custody over the minor. She cannot be deprived of that right,28 and she may not even renounce or transfer it
“except in the cases authorized by law.
However, Article 213 of the Family Code states, no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother,
except when the court finds cause to order otherwise. Only the most compelling of reasons, such as the mother’s
unfitness to exercise sole parental authority, shall justify her deprivation of parental authority and the award of custody
to someone else. Thus, Loreta has the proper custody while petitioner is allowed for visitation buit the Rulle 99 of the
RFulkes of Court did not apply as what CA stated. Rule 99 of the Rules of Court only applies a situation in which the
parents of the minor are married to each other, but are separated either by virtue of a decree of legal separation or
because they are living separately de facto. Since parties are not married.