Title
Briones vs. Miguel
Case
G.R. No. 156343
Decision Date
Oct 18, 2004
Petitioner seeks custody of his illegitimate child; SC denies, affirming mother’s sole parental authority under Family Code, prioritizing child’s welfare.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156343)

Facts:

Joey D. Briones v. Maricel P. Miguel, Francisca P. Miguel and Loreta P. Miguel, G.R. No. 156343, October 18, 2004, the Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.

Petitioner Joey D. Briones filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus on March 5, 2002 (later amended April 25, 2002 to implead Loreta P. Miguel, the mother) seeking custody of his minor son Michael Kevin Pineda. A writ was issued by the trial court on March 11, 2002 directing respondents to produce the child on March 21, 2002. The child was born in Japan on September 17, 1996; the mother later married a Japanese national and was residing in Japan. Petitioner alleged he brought the child to the Philippines in November 1998 and cared for him, while respondents countered that the mother had taken the child back pursuant to their agreement.

The Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City case (docketed SPC No. 2711) was instituted but withdrawn ex parte; petitioner then pursued relief before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated August 28, 2002, applied Article 213, paragraph 2, of the Family Code and awarded custody to the mother, Loreta P. Miguel, while granting petitioner visitorial rights and ordering support; it also provided that the child could choose which parent to live with upon reaching ten years of age. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated December 11, 2002 and also denied his Urgent Motion for a Hold Departure Order.

Petitioner sought review by this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The case was deemed submitted for decision on August 4, 2003 after receipt of memoranda fr...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • In an action for custody of an illegitimate child, may the natural father be denied custody and parental authority in favor of the mother?
  • Did the Court of Appeals properly apply Section 6, Rule 99 of the Rules of Court to permit the child to choose which parent to live with upon reach...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.