Case Digest (G.R. No. 111180)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 111180)
Facts:
Daisie T. David v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111180. November 16, 1995, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Daisie T. David was the secretary and intimate companion of private respondent Ramon R. Villar, a married businessman of Angeles City. Their relationship produced three children: Christopher J. (born March 9, 1985), Christine (born June 9, 1986) and Cathy Mae (born April 24, 1988). Villar’s legal wife learned of the relationship and the children after Daisie brought Christopher J. to Villar’s home in 1986; thereafter the children were at times accepted and brought to Villar’s household.
In the summer of 1991 Villar took Christopher J., then six, on a family trip to Boracay and thereafter refused to return the child to Daisie, claiming he had enrolled Christopher at Holy Family Academy. On July 30, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of Christopher J. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, Angeles City, after hearing, rendered judgment awarding custody of Christopher J. to his natural mother, Daisie, ordered Villar to pay temporary support of P3,000.00 a month for Christopher and his two sisters pending final determination, and taxed costs against Villar.
Villar appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals held that habeas corpus was not the proper remedy to decide custody and support in the context of an adulterous relationship and that, given Villar’s financial capacity, it was for the child’s best interest temporarily to remain with him until custody and support were determined in a proper action. Daisie filed a petition for review of the appellate court’s decision with the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Was habeas corpus a proper remedy to recover custody of the illegitimate child Christopher J.?
- Should the RTC decision granting custody to the mother and ordering temporary support of P3,000.00 be reinstated?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)