G.R. No. 205879 - Skunac Corp. vs. Sylianteng

Petitioner Nita Flores filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus to recover possession of her daughter, Asuncion F. Cruz, from respondent Felisa V. Cruz.
Asuncion Cruz was born out of wedlock on May 25, 1939, and had been living continuously with her mother since birth.

In July 1954, while residing at No. 14 South 10 Street, Diliman, Quezon City, in the house of her employer Dr. Silva, petitioner sent Asuncion to live with her paternal grandmother, respondent Felisa V. Cruz, at No. 21 K-2 Street, Kamuning, Quezon City.
The transfer of custody was executed to keep Asuncion away from a suitor, reflecting a deliberate decision by the petitioner on the welfare of her daughter.
Approximately one month later, when petitioner called upon her daughter to return to her house, respondent allegedly denied the daughter’s return, thereby initiating the custody conflict.

The case was originally instituted in October 1954 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
During the trial, the respondent testified that Asuncion was not deprived of her liberty and was free to return to her mother should she choose, a fact corroborated by Asuncion herself.
Based on the absence of any physical restraint or coercion in Asuncion’s living arrangement, the lower court dismissed the case.

Petitioner appealed the dismissal, contesting certain factual presentations but effectively accepting most facts, thereby narrowing the controversy to a pure question of law.
The central legal question for resolution was whether a writ of habeas corpus remains available when a minor voluntarily resides with a person other than her natural parent.

Whether a writ of habeas corpus may be issued to enable a natural parent to regain custody of a minor who is voluntarily residing with a third party, in the absence of any physical restraint on the minor.

The applicability of precedent cases where minors in loco parentis voluntarily choose to live separately from their natural parents.
The extent to which parental authority, as vested by law, may be overridden by the minor’s expressed preference or the actions of a custodial third party.