Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4362)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4362)
Facts:
Maximino A. Garcia v. Patrocinio Pongan, G.R. No. L-4362. August 31, 1951, the Supreme Court, Feria, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner-appellant Maximino A. Garcia filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Cebu seeking custody of Teonila Garcia, born November 18, 1938. The petition alleged that Teonila was the natural child of both the petitioner and respondent and that the petitioner was entitled to her custody. Respondent-appellee Patrocinio Pongan opposed the petition.
After hearing, the Court of First Instance denied the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition and awarded custody of Teonila to the respondent. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The record shows that the father (petitioner) had recognized the child by a judicial judgment, while the mother (respondent) had recognized the child by voluntarily testifying under oath before the trial court. At trial the minor, who was over ten years of age, expressed a preference to live with her mother. There was no evidence presented to show that the mother was unfit to have custody by reason of moral depravity, habitual drunkenness, incapacity, or poverty.
On appeal the Supreme Court considered whether the recognition by both parents conferred parental authority entitling either to custody, and whether the child’s preference (being over ten) and the Rules of Court provision governing custody determinations should control the award. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order awarding custody to the mother and assessed costs against the appellant.
Issues:
- Did the petitioner have the right to recover custody of Teonila Garcia despite both parents having recognized the child?
- Is the child’s preference (being over ten years of age) a controlling factor in awarding custody when both parents have parental authority?
- Are the recognition provisions of the Civil Code (including voluntary recognition before a court) and the custody rule in Section 6, Rule 100 of the Rules of Court applicable to recognized natural children?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)