G.R. No. 251792 - Cando vs. Solis

CCC (petitioner) married the late III in 2006; they had two children: AAA (born 2006) and BBB (born 2011).
Their relationship deteriorated after seven years due to personal differences, resulting in III leaving with their children to her parents' home in North Cotabato.
The marriage was legally dissolved in 2014 by a Shari’a Court. III passed away three years later, leaving the children under the care of her relatives, the respondents.
Respondent EEE, III’s brother, was judicially appointed as guardian of AAA and BBB.

In 2018, CCC discovered his children living with III’s siblings in an apartment outside of North Cotabato.
CCC filed a petition for habeas corpus to regain custody before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA referred the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch xxxxxxxxxxx, Cotabato, and ordered the children's appearance.
During the trial, AAA testified to physical abuse inflicted by CCC on him, his sister, and their late mother, including a specific incident wherein CCC threatened III’s life. AAA expressed preference to live with the mother’s siblings rather than CCC, citing deep-seated hatred.
BBB affirmed such testimony and expressed desire to remain with her aunts and uncles, noting that CCC already had another wife and children.
Respondents stated that following III’s death, caretaking was entrusted to them, with EEE officially appointed guardian who supports the children financially with PHP 40,000 monthly despite working abroad. They questioned CCC's fitness to provide proper care citing hardships endured by III during the marriage.

CCC denied abandoning his family and claimed his new relationship commenced only after separation from III.
He accused respondents of influencing his children against him and expressed his desire to raise and guide his children.
CCC stated that his new wife accepted the children into their household.

RTC denied CCC’s habeas corpus petition and retained custody with EEE, prescribing monthly financial support by CCC and ordering counselling for children, guardian, and petitioner to address visitation and preparation.
RTC reasoned custody would remain with respondents for the children’s best interest, acknowledging children’s preference and the need to maintain status quo.
The CA affirmed the RTC ruling after examining the circumstances surrounding the children’s welfare and development, finding the respondents had better right to custody.
The CA held that EEE, as judicially appointed guardian, lawfully held custody and had not deprived minors of liberty unjustly. CCC’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Whether the RTC and CA erred in denying CCC’s petition for habeas corpus and custody over his minor children.
Whether the children’s preference, allegations of abuse, and guardianship appointment justify the continued custody by the respondents.
Whether CCC has the right of custody and if the withholding of the children’s custody by the respondents is unlawful.
What is the best interest of the minors in the context of custody determination in a habeas corpus proceeding.