Case Summary (G.R. No. 231062)
Petitioner (CCC): background and claims
CCC married III in 2006 and is the biological father of AAA and BBB. After marital difficulties, III left the marital home with the children and later obtained a Shari’a divorce in 2014. CCC contends he did not unlawfully abandon his wife and children, asserts that any subsequent relationship commenced only after separation, and expresses a desire to raise and guide his children. He accuses respondents of influencing the children against him and avers his new wife has agreed to accept the children into their household. CCC sought issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody and appealed adverse rulings through the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court.
Respondents and guardianship (EEE and III’s relatives)
III’s siblings took custody of the children after III’s death (three years after the 2014 divorce). EEE, III’s brother, filed for and obtained judicial appointment as the guardian of the minors. Despite working abroad as a seaman, EEE consistently provided monthly financial support (PHP 40,000.00) for the children. Respondents maintain they were entrusted with the children’s care, assert concerns about CCC’s fitness to provide proper care, and recount hardships faced by III while with CCC.
Relevant dates and procedural history
Notable timeline entries provided in the record: marriage in 2006; births of AAA (2006) and BBB (2011); Shari’a divorce in 2014; III’s death approximately three years later; petitioner’s discovery of the children living with respondents and filing of a habeas corpus petition in 2018; RTC Judgment rendered December 4, 2020 (denying habeas corpus and awarding custody to guardian EEE); Court of Appeals Decision of June 21, 2022 and Resolution of November 14, 2022 (affirming the RTC); and the Supreme Court decision under review (reported outcome denying the verified appeal by certiorari).
Core factual findings at trial
At the RTC evidentiary hearing, AAA and BBB testified that CCC physically abused them and their mother and expressed hostility toward III and the children (including threats; AAA reported overhearing CCC refuse to acknowledge III and the children). Both minors stated a preference to remain with their aunts and uncle, citing kindness and reluctance to live with CCC (BBB referenced CCC’s new family). Respondents detailed the care they provided and EEE’s monthly support. CCC denied abandonment and accused respondents of coloring the children’s views against him; he acknowledged past shortcomings and stated his intent to assume parental responsibilities.
Trial court disposition and remedial orders
The RTC denied CCC’s petition for habeas corpus and custody, maintaining custody with EEE, the judicially appointed guardian (as designated in Special Procedure No. 17-010). The court ordered CCC to pay monthly financial support of PHP 40,000.00 for the two children (the sum EEE had been providing), subject to increase depending on the children’s needs. The RTC directed the Local Social Welfare and Development Office to conduct continuous counseling for the minors and the guardian and to report progress, and it required petitioner to undergo psychological and psychiatric counseling. Visitation rights were conditioned on the Social Welfare Officer’s recommendation and the children’s readiness.
Court of Appeals ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision. The CA considered the totality of circumstances affecting the minors’ well‑being and development, found respondents had the better right to retain custody, and held that EEE, as judicially appointed guardian, had not unlawfully restrained or deprived the minors of their liberty.
Issues raised in the Supreme Court appeal
CCC sought relief by verified appeal under Rule 45, challenging the factual and legal conclusions of the RTC and CA and seeking reversal of the denial of the writ of habeas corpus and restoration of custody to him. The dispositive legal issue was whether the factual findings and custody determination below were erroneous and whether the requisites for issuance of the writ in a custody case were satisfied in favor of the petitioner.
Applicable law and standards applied
Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable given the decision date). Procedural and custody standards invoked include Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (scope of certiorari under Rule 45), decisions cited in the record (Bagtas v. Hon. Judge Santos; Pascual v. Pangyarihan-Ang; Masbate v. Relucio), and A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (Re: Proposed Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors) promulgated April 22, 2003. The Court relied on the threefold requisites for issuance of the writ in custody disputes: (1) petitioner’s right of custody; (2) withholding of the rightful custody by respondent; and (3) that it is in the best interest of the minor to be placed with petitioner rather than respondent. Section 14 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC enumerates factors relevant to custody determinations, including the child’s welfare, history of abuse, health and safety, nature and frequency of contact with parents, and the preference of children over seven years with sufficient discernment.
Supreme Court’s reasoning and deference to factual findings
The Supreme Court denied the appeal, concluding no reversible error in the CA
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 231062)
Nature of the Case and Relief Sought
- Verified Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from CCC (petitioner) seeking to overturn the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) judgment denying CCC’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and for custody of minors AAA and BBB.
- Case docketed as G.R. No. 264846 with final resolution dated February 05, 2024.
- The CA case number is CA-G.R. SP No. 10277-MIN; the CA Decision being assailed was dated June 21, 2022 and the CA Resolution dated November 14, 2022.
Procedural History
- RTC, Branch xxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxx, Cotabato rendered Judgment on December 4, 2020, denying CCC’s petition for habeas corpus and custody of minors (Presiding Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum).
- CA, Twenty-First Division, Cagayan de Oro City affirmed the RTC Decision by its June 21, 2022 Decision (penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Lily V. Biton and Ana Marie T. Mas).
- CA denied CCC’s Motion for Reconsideration by Resolution dated November 14, 2022.
- CCC filed a Verified Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, which issued the present Decision authored by Justice Dimaampao denying the appeal and affirming the CA and RTC rulings.
Material Facts / Antecedents
- CCC married the late III in 2006; the marriage produced two children: AAA (born 2006) and BBB (born 2011).
- After seven years of marriage, CCC and III’s relationship deteriorated due to personal differences; III left the marital home with the children and sought refuge at her parents’ house in xxxxxxxxxxx, North Cotabato.
- In 2014, the marriage was legally dissolved through a divorce obtained from a Shari’a Court.
- Three years after the divorce, III died; AAA and BBB were thereafter under the care and custody of III’s relatives, respondents in the case.
- EEE (III’s brother) became the judicially appointed guardian of the children and filed and obtained the guardianship petition (Spl. Proc. No. 17-010).
- EEE, though working as a seaman abroad, provided monthly support of PHP 40,000.00 for the children.
- In 2018 CCC discovered that his children were residing in an apartment in xxxxxxxxxxx with III’s siblings and filed a petition before the CA seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody.
- Prior to final adjudication, the CA referred the case to the RTC and ordered III’s siblings to appear with the children and to show cause why the children should not be returned to CCC.
Testimonies and Evidence Presented
- AAA testified to physical abuse inflicted by CCC upon him, his sister, and their late mother; he described a specific incident when CCC traveled to xxxxxxxxxxx, Cotabato with the purpose of threatening III’s life.
- AAA testified that he heard CCC say he refused to acknowledge III as his wife and the children as his own, and that AAA expressed preference to live with his mother’s siblings rather than with CCC; AAA conveyed hatred toward his father.
- BBB’s testimony corroborated AAA’s account; she expressed desire to remain with her aunts and uncles due to their kindness and reluctance to live with CCC because he already had another wife and children.
- Respondents (III’s relatives) explained they were entrusted with care of the children after III’s death and detailed hardships endured by III while living with CCC.
- CCC denied abandoning III and their children for another woman, stated he entered a new relationship only after separation from III, and accused respondents of influencing the children against him. He asserted his new wife agreed to take the children into their household and expressed desire to raise and guide his children, acknowledging past shortcomings.
Trial Court Judgment (RTC)
- RTC denied the petition for habeas corpus and custody and refused to grant custody to CCC.
- The fallo of the RTC Judgment ordered:
- Custody over the person of minors AAA and BBB to remain with EEE, the guardian designated and appointed by the Court in Spl. Proc. No. 17-010.
- Petitioner CCC ordered to give monthly financial support of PHP 40,000.00 for the two children (the amount EEE had been providing), subject to increase depending on needs.
- The Local Social Welfare and Development Office (LSWDO) Social Welfare Officer of xxxxxxxxxxx, Cotabato was directed to conduct thorough and continuous counseling for the minors and guardian to emotionally and psychologically prepare the minors to allow petitioner visitation; s