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.
G.R. No. 156343. October 18, 2004

FACTS:
This is a Petition for Review that seeks of the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals giving the custody of the
child to herein respondent. Borth parties are parents of Michale Kevin Pineda, who is considered their illegitimate child.
Briones, petitioner prays to obtain the custody of his child being the biological father. He narrated that Loreta,
respondent mother is already married and living in Japan with her Japanese husband. He decided to bring his son in the
Philippines, where he took care and sent to school through the help of his parents, who are both pensioner. One day,
respondent’s sisters asked to visit and allow to bring the said child for recreation at the SM Department store with the
agreement to bring him back but failed to do so.
This cause petitioner to file a Petition for Habeas Corpus where the child was presented in court and respondent mother
revealed that petitioner is incapable to support and take care of their son as he was previously deported in Japan and he
has not been gainfully employed. Further, her marriage to a Japanese national is for the purpose of availing of the
privileges of staying temporarily in Japan to pursue her work so she could be able to send money regularly to her son in
the Philippines.
The Court of Appeals applied Article 213 (paragraph 2) of the Family Code, the CA awarded the custody of Michael Kevin
Pineda Miguel to his mother, Respondent Loreta P. Miguel. While acknowledging that petitioner truly loved and cared
for his son and considering the trouble and expense he had spent in instituting the legal action for custody, it
nevertheless found no compelling reason to separate the minor from his mother. Petitioner, however, was granted
visitorial rights.
ISSUE:
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.

JOEY D. BRIONES, Petitioner, vs. MARICEL P. MIGUEL, FRANCISCA P. MIGUEL, and LORETA P. MIGUEL, Respondents.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOEY D. BRIONES, Petitioner, vs. MARICEL P. MIGUEL, FRANCISCA P. MIGUEL, and LORETA P. MIGUEL, Respondents.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOEY D. BRIONES, petitioner, vs. MARICEL P. MIGUEL, FRANCISCA P. MIGUEL, and LORETA P. MIGUEL, respondents.

G.R. No. 156343. October 18, 2004

You might also like