G.R. No. 156343 - Briones vs. Miguel

Case Summary (G.R. No. 156343)

Petitioner

Joey D. Briones sought custody of his son through a Petition for Habeas Corpus and later a petition for review, asserting his status as the biological father, his role in bringing the child to the Philippines in 1998, his efforts to provide care and education (including enrolment at a nursery school in Caloocan City), and the alleged removal of the child from his custody by respondents in May 2001. He sought custody citing his demonstrated capability to support and educate the child and contending that custody should devolve to him when the mother is absent abroad.

Respondents

Loreta P. Miguel (the mother) admitted maternity, asserted she brought the child to the Philippines pursuant to agreement, and averred she later took the child back to the Philippines and then to Japan when she returned there. She alleged the petitioner was deported from Japan in October 2001 under an assumed name and has not been gainfully employed since. Loreta explained her marriage to a Japanese national was to enable temporary residence and continued work in Japan so she could send money to her son; she stated she returns to the Philippines about every six months. Maricel and Francisca P. Miguel were impleaded as respondents for their alleged role in removing the child; their specific factual assertions are set out in the lower-court record summarized by the Court of Appeals.

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Birth of child: September 17, 1996 (Japan).
Original writ of habeas corpus issued by trial court and brought before the Court of Appeals; petitioner filed amended pleadings adding the mother as respondent on April 25, 2002.
Court of Appeals decision (August 28, 2002) awarded custody to mother Loreta P. Miguel, granted petitioner visitorial rights, and erroneously allowed the child to choose parent at age ten under Section 6, Rule 99 (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
Reconsideration denied (December 11, 2002).
Petition for review under Rule 45 filed with the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court denied the petition but modified the CA decision by deleting the provision allowing the child's choice at age ten. Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Constitution (Article II, Section 12 referenced by the Court).

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary statutory provisions relied upon and discussed in the decision are in the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209, 1987): Article 176 (illegitimate children under parental authority of the mother; surname and entitlement to support), Article 213 (guarding separation of child under seven from the mother), Article 210 (limited instances of waiver/transfer of parental authority such as adoption, guardianship, surrender), Article 185 (adoption effect), Article 54 and related Family Code provisions concerning legitimacy exceptions. The decision also references Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution regarding parental rights and the inherent and natural right of parents over their children.

Facts (as found and summarized)

Both parents acknowledged paternity/maternity. The petitioner claimed he brought the child to the Philippines in 1998 and cared for him with assistance from his retired parents. The child was allegedly taken by maternal respondents in May 2001 under the pretext of a visit and was not returned. The mother alleges she removed the child when she returned to the Philippines and that the petitioner consented; she also asserted the petitioner’s deportation from Japan and lack of steady employment thereafter. A Special Power of Attorney dated May 28, 2001 was produced by the mother granting temporary custody to her sister, and at the time of proceedings the child was reported to be with the mother in Japan, studying.

Issue Presented

Whether, as the natural father, petitioner may be denied custody of his illegitimate child in the absence of the mother who is frequently abroad, and whether custody should be awarded to the father during the mother’s absence (i.e., whether joint or divided custody by presence should be recognized).

Court of Appeals Ruling (summary)

The Court of Appeals applied Article 213(2) of the Family Code and awarded custody to the mother, acknowledging the petitioner’s affection and efforts but finding no compelling reason to separate the child from the mother. The CA granted the petitioner visitorial rights and allowed the child, upon reaching ten years of age, to choose which parent to live with pursuant to Section 6, Rule 99, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Supreme Court Ruling — Custody and Parental Authority for Illegitimate Child

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, affirming the CA’s award of custody to the mother but modifying the CA decision by deleting the provision permitting the child, at age ten, to choose which parent to live with. The Court held that under Article 176 of the Family Code, parental authority over illegitimate children resides solely in the mother, and she is entitled to custody and to keep the child in her company. The Court emphasized that the mother cannot be deprived of custody absent an imperative cause showing unfitness to exercise parental authority and care.

Legal Reasoning: Family Code Provisions and Historical Context

The Court traced the evolution from Civil Code classifications (natural vs. spurious illegitimate children) to the Family Code’s simplification into two broad classes: legitimate and illegitimate (Article 165 and related provisions). Article 176 of the Family Code expressly places illegitimate children under the parental authority of their mother regardless of paternal recognition. The Court cited precedent holding that paternal recognition may obligate support but does not confer custody rights unless the mother defaults. The Court noted that adoption by the father could confer legitimacy and thus change parental authority, but absent such measures the mother's sole parental authority stands.

Standard for Depriving Mother of Custody

The Court re

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 156343)

Citation and Court

Reported at 483 Phil. 483; 102 OG No. 12, 1770 (March 20, 2006).
Decision authored by Justice Panganiban of the Supreme Court, Third Division, G.R. No. 156343, October 18, 2004.
Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals’ August 28, 2002 Decision and its December 11, 2002 Resolution in CA-GR SP No. 69400.
The Court of Appeals’ dispositive portion awarded custody to respondent Loreta P. Miguel until the child reaches ten years of age, allowed the child to choose which parent to live with thereafter pursuant to Section 6, Rule 99 (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended), granted visitorial rights to petitioner Joey D. Briones, and required the petitioner to support the child; the CA denied reconsideration in its December 11, 2002 Resolution.
Supreme Court’s disposition: Petition denied; CA Decision affirmed with modification deleting the portion allowing the child to choose at age ten; costs against petitioner.

Procedural History and Key Filings

March 5, 2002: Petitioner Joey D. Briones filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus against Maricel Pineda Miguel and Francisca Pineda Miguel seeking custody of his minor child Michael Kevin Pineda.
April 25, 2002: Petitioner filed an Amended Petition adding Loreta P. Miguel (the child’s mother) as a respondent.
March 11, 2002: Writ of Habeas Corpus issued ordering respondents to produce the child on March 21, 2002.
May 6, 2002: Respondents filed their Comment in compliance with the Court’s resolution.
During pendency before CA, petitioner filed (July 30, 2002) an “Urgent Motion for a Hold Departure Order” alleging preparation of travel documents to send the child to Japan; the CA denied this motion for lack of merit.
Case deemed submitted for decision on August 4, 2003 upon the Supreme Court’s receipt of respondents’ Memorandum; petitioner’s Memorandum received July 8, 2003.
The Supreme Court rendered decision October 18, 2004; the published report appears March 20, 2006.

Factual Background

The minor, Michael Kevin Pineda, was born in Japan on September 17, 1996 (Birth Certificate).
Petitioner alleges Michael is his illegitimate son with respondent Loreta P. Miguel.
Petitioner alleges he caused the child to be brought to the Philippines on November 4, 1998 to take care of and educate him; child enrolled in nursery (school year 2000–2001) at Blessed Angels L.A. School, Inc., Caloocan City.
Petitioner’s retired parents, who receive monthly pensions, assisted in caring for the child.
May 2, 2001: Respondents Maricel and Francisca allegedly visited petitioner’s home under pretext of recreation at an SM Department store and took the child, promising return in the afternoon but did not bring him back.
Petitioner made repeated inquiries in Tuguegarao City and Santiago City, sought police and Department of Social Welfare assistance, and filed an earlier habeas corpus action in the RTC of Caloocan (SPC No. 2711) which was withdrawn ex parte.
Respondent Loreta’s account: she denies petitioner’s allegation that petitioner brought the child to the Philippines and asserts she brought him pursuant to their agreement; she avers she took the child from the petitioner when she returned to the Philippines with his consent.
Loreta alleges petitioner was deported from Japan in October 2001 under the assumed name Renato Juanzon for violating Japanese law and has not been gainfully employed since; custody had been entrusted to petitioner’s parents while both parents worked in Japan.
Loreta states her marriage to a Japanese national is to avail privileges to stay temporarily in Japan to pursue work and remit money to her son, that she does not intend permanent residence in Japan and returns to the Philippines every six months or as often as possible.
Loreta invoked Article 213, paragraph 2 of the Family Code and Article 363 of the Civil Code in praying for custody.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling (Summarized)

Applied Article 213 (paragraph 2) of the Family Code to award custody of Michael Kevin Pineda to his mother, Loreta P. Miguel.
Acknowledged petitioner’s love, care, and expenditures in instituting custody proceedings but found no compelling reason to separate the child from his mother.
Granted petitioner visitorial rights and the obligation to support the child.
Permitted the child, upon reaching ten (10) years of age, to choose which parent he prefers to live with pursuant to Section 6, Rule 99.
Denied petitioner’s urgent motion for a hold departure order for lack of merit.
Denied reconsideration in the December 11, 2002 Resolution.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Ultimate issue as formulated by petitioner: whether the natural father may be denied custody and parental care of his own child in the absence of the mother who is away.
Petitioner’s practical contention: joint custody where mother has custody while in the country but father should have custody when mother is abroad; he asserts Loreta lives most of the time in Japan and cites a Special Power of Attorney dated May 28, 200