Facts:

On June 3, 1923, Maria Bancosta initiated legal proceedings by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking the return of her daughter, Ina Bancosta. Her daughter was in the custody of P. C. Due, who claimed that Ina had been entrusted to him by her father, Jack Hamilton. The case was heard in the Court of First Instance of Cavite. During the hearings, it was established that Ina was indeed the daughter of Maria Bancosta, while the alleged paternity of Jack Hamilton was not proven. The court granted Maria's petition, ordering the sheriff to return the girl to her mother.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, P. C. Due appealed, contending that the trial court made an error by not recognizing Jack Hamilton as the natural father of Ina. He argued that he lawfully possessed custody of her and was unfairly deprived of this custody. Due also sought the opportunity to present the deposition of Hamilton, who was reportedly ill at that time in Baguio, alongside witnesses from Alba

...

Facts:

Initiation of the Case

• On June 3, 1923, Maria Bancosta filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• The petition prayed that her daughter, known as Ina Bancosta, be delivered into her custody.

Proceedings at the Court of First Instance of Cavite

• The trial court took cognizance of the petition and examined the evidence regarding the girl’s parentage.
• The court found that the girl is the daughter of the petitioner, Maria Bancosta, having no sufficient evidence proving that Jack Hamilton was her natural father.
• Based on the findings, the court granted the petition and ordered the sheriff, who had custody of the girl, to deliver her to Maria Bancosta.

Respondent’s Allegations and Evidence

• P. C. Due, appearing as both respondent and appellant, argued that the girl had been lawfully entrusted to him by her alleged father, Jack Hamilton.
• The respondent presented Exhibit A—a document purportedly authored by Jack Hamilton—that stated:
• Jack Hamilton gave his daughter into the temporary care of Mr. P. C. Due during his absence.
• The document contained provisions regarding the custody and eventual inheritance of the girl.
• It implied that if Mr. Due did not wish to undertake the responsibility, he was to transfer the girl to another agency (the Society for the Protection of American Mestizas) along with the relevant documents.
• The respondent also claimed that Maria Bancosta’s personal conduct was not exemplary, asserting that she was living maritally with another man and had multiple children by different persons—a claim not sufficiently substantiated.

Evidentiary and Procedural Issues Raised

• The respondent sought to have the deposition of Jack Hamilton taken, asserting that his testimony could explain the meaning and implications of Exhibit A.
• Additionally, he requested the testimony of several witnesses in the Province of Albay to verify the paternity of the girl and the conduct of Maria Bancosta.
• On September 5, 1923, the respondent informed the court that Jack Hamilton had died.
• A resolution on September 6, 1923, denied the petition for taking additional depositions, principally because the investigation into paternity was not legally permissible in the context of the case.

Issue:

Determination of Custody

• Whether the evidence sufficiently established that Ina Bancosta was the child of Maria Bancosta.
• Whether the custody of the child should be maintained with the petitioner despite the presentation of Exhibit A by the respondent.

Validity and Effect of Exhibit A

• Whether Exhibit A, purportedly given by Jack Hamilton, legally conferred parental authority to the respondent, P. C. Due.
• Whether the trust mentioned in Exhibit A could override the established maternal rights of Maria Bancosta.

Procedural and Evidentiary Considerations

• Whether the trial court erred in not allowing the respondent to present the deposition of Jack Hamilton and the testimony of witnesses from the Province of Albay.
• Whether the posthumous revelation of Jack Hamilton’s death would affect the procedural fairness regarding the opportunity to investigate the issues raised.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)