Title
Sy vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 124518
Decision Date
Dec 27, 2007
A mother sought custody of her minor children via habeas corpus, alleging unlawful detention by the father. Courts awarded custody to her, affirmed maternal preference for children under seven, and upheld provisional support, ruling support adjudication valid in habeas corpus cases.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35645)

Facts:

  • Initiation of Proceedings
    • On January 19, 1994, respondent Mercedes Tan Uy-Sy filed a petition for habeas corpus against petitioner Wilson Sy before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 48, Special Proceeding No. 94-69002.
    • In her petition, respondent prayed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ordering petitioner to produce the minor children, Vanessa and Jeremiah Uy-Sy, and for their care and custody to be awarded to her.
  • Counterclaims and Allegations by the Parties
    • In his answer, petitioner Wilson Sy counterclaimed, requesting that custody of the children be awarded to him.
    • Petitioner alleged that respondent was unfit for custody based on:
      • Her alleged abandonment of the family in 1992.
      • Claims of her mental instability.
      • Inability to provide proper care for the minor children.
  • Trial Court Decision
    • After a trial, the Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of respondent by issuing a writ and awarding custody of the children solely to her.
    • The trial court also ordered respondent to pay petitioner monthly support amounting to P50,000.00 for the children, basing this on the failure of petitioner to prove by preponderance of evidence that he was unfit for custody.
  • Appeal to the Court of Appeals
    • Petitioner appealed the trial court’s order, asserting errors in both the custody and support rulings.
    • He contended:
      • The award of custody solely to respondent was improper.
      • The trial court lacked jurisdiction to award support in a habeas corpus proceeding.
      • The support order of P50,000.00 was arbitrary, unjust, and amounted to a deprivation of property without due process.
    • The Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that:
      • Petitioner failed to prove that respondent was unfit for custody.
      • The evidence on respondent’s actions (such as alleged abandonment and financial capability) did not meet the required standard.
      • The questions regarding care, custody, and support were properly raised and adjudicated as an incident to the habeas corpus proceeding.
  • Petition for Review on Certiorari
    • Petitioner later filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals.
    • In his petition, petitioner reiterated his contentions regarding:
      • The erroneous award of custody.
      • The improper adjudication of the support issue.
      • That the support order of P50,000.00 was arbitrary and constitutionally flawed.
    • Respondent argued that petitioner lost privilege to raise some issues as these had not been raised before the appellate court and maintained that the award of support and custody were proper as per the evidence and applicable law.

Issues:

  • Custody of the Minor Children
    • Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in awarding custody of the minor children solely to respondent.
    • Whether petitioner’s allegations regarding respondent’s unfitness (abandonment, mental instability, and inability to provide proper care) were substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
  • Award of Support
    • Whether the Court of Appeals had proper jurisdiction to award support in a habeas corpus proceeding.
    • Whether the imposition of P50,000.00 monthly support was justified, given that support was not expressly petitioned in the original pleadings.
    • Whether the evidence presented during trial – including respondent’s testimony and petitioner’s failure to produce sufficient financial documentation – warranted the support award.
  • Procedural and Evidentiary Considerations
    • Whether the issue of support, which was not expressly included in the pleadings, was properly tried through the doctrine of implied consent.
    • Whether the amendment of the pleadings was necessary or the evidence was sufficient to treat the matter as if support was raised in the pleadings.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

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.

About Privacy Terms