To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd

ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

No. 156343
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/oct2004/gr_156343_2004.html
18 Oct 2004 ... An illegitimate child is under the sole parental authority of the mother. ... she is abroad, he -- as the biolo
should have custody.
G.R. No. 206248
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_206248_2014.html
18 Feb 2014 ... Ordering [Grande] to immediately surrender the persons and custody of minors ... the grant of sole custod
the mother over her illegitimate children.9 In ... and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or a foreign country;.
G.R. No. L-68374
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/jun1985/gr_l68374_1985.html
18 Jun 1985 ... The couple doted upon Shirley who called them "Mama" and "Papa". ... her " Mama" and "Papa" decided to
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

Shirley abroad and show her Disneyland ... The determination, therefore, as to whose custody the child belongs must ... j
exercise parental authority over their legitimate children. who are not ...
Rules of Court - New Rule on Adoption
https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_adoption_2002.html
(i) ensure that every child remains under the care and custody of his parents and is ... not limited to, parent preparation an
adoption education and counseling; ... (ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child: Provided, however, ... If
is an alien or residing abroad but qualified to adopt, the home ...
G.R. No. 105308
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/sep1998/gr_105308_1998.html
25 Sep 1998 ... (3) The natural mother of the children, Anna Marie, nicknamed "Menchu," ... Tito Doy Laurel's house, the M
of Foreign Affairs, the executive ... Court awarded custody of a minor illegitimate child to his mother who was a ...
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

G.R. No. 122906

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/feb2002/gr_122906_2002.html
7 Feb 2002 ... To be sure, transfer of custody of the child from petitioner to private respondent will be ... Faith, the law con
authority upon her as the mother of the illegitimate minor. ... Quisumbing, J., abroad, on official leave.
Bar Examination Questionnaire for Civil Law
https://lawphil.net/courts/bm/barQ/2011/civilQ.html
... over school children under their supervision, instruction, or custody is called ... (C) She can go abroad and file for divo
country that can grant it. (D) She ... (B) The divorce rendered illegitimate the children born before it since the ... (D) All
the children are legitimate since they were born of the same father and mother .
G.R. No. L-1663
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1948/mar1948/gr_l-1663_1948.html
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before adoption ... help petitioner's case to assert that as a
has a right to retain custody of ... That is what happens in the case of an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother ...
G.R. No. 113054
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/mar1995/gr_113054_1995.html
16 Mar 1995 ... Private respondents claim that although abroad, their daughter Julia had ... right of a parent to his child's
ultimately the primary consideration is ... is awarded to his legitimate father, herein petitioner Leouel Santos, Sr.
R.A. 9255
https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9255_2004.html
Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled
conformity with this Code.
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 156343             October 18, 2004

JOEY D. BRIONES, petitioner,
vs.
MARICEL P. MIGUEL, FRANCISCA P. MIGUEL and LORETA P. MIGUEL, respondents.
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

DECISION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

An illegitimate child is under the sole parental authority of the mother. In the exercise of that authority, she is entitled
child in her company. The Court will not deprive her of custody, absent any imperative cause showing her unfitness to
such authority and care.

The Case
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

The Petition for Review1 before the Court seeks to reverse and set aside the August 28, 2002 Decision 2 and the Dece
2002 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 69400. 4 The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision re
follows:

"WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent Loreta P. Miguel shall have custody
child Michael Kevin Pineda until he reaches ten (10) years of age. Once the said child is beyond ten (
age, the Court allows him to choose which parent he prefers to live with pursuant to Section 6, Rule 9
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. The petitioner, Joey D. Briones, shall help support the ch
have visitorial rights at least once a week, and may take the child out upon the written consent of the
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

"Acting on the petitioner’s ‘Urgent Motion for a Hold Departure Order’, and finding it to be without mer
is DENIED."5

The challenged Resolution denied reconsideration.

The Facts

The CA summarized the antecedents of the case in this wise:

"On March 5, 2002, petitioner Joey D. Briones filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus against respondents
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

Pineda Miguel and Francisca Pineda Miguel, to obtain custody of his minor child Michael Kevin Pined

"On April 25, 2002, the petitioner filed an Amended Petition to include Loreta P. Miguel, the mother of
as one of the respondents.

"A Writ of Habeas Corpus was issued by this Court on March 11, 2002 ordering the respondents to pr
before this Court the living body of the minor Michael Kevin Pineda on March 21, 2002 at 2:00 o’clock
afternoon.

"The petitioner alleges that the minor Michael Kevin Pineda is his illegitimate son with respondent Lor
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

Miguel. He was born in Japan on September 17, 1996 as evidenced by his Birth Certificate. The respo
Loreta P. Miguel is now married to a Japanese national and is presently residing in Japan.

"The petitioner further alleges that on November 4, 1998 he caused the minor child to be brought to th
Philippines so that he could take care of him and send him to school. In the school year 2000-2001, th
enrolled him at the nursery school of Blessed Angels L.A. School, Inc. in Caloocan City, where he fini
nursery course.

"According to the petitioner, his parents, who are both retired and receiving monthly pensions, assiste
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

taking care of the child.

"On May 2, 2001, respondents Maricel P. Miguel and Francisca P. Miguel came to the house of the p
Caloocan City on the pretext that they were visiting the minor child and requested that they be allowed
the said child for recreation at the SM Department store. They promised him that they will bring him b
afternoon, to which the petitioner agreed. However, the respondents did not bring him back as promis

"The petitioner went several times to respondent Maricel P. Miguel at Tanza, Tuguegarao City but he
informed that the child is with the latter’s mother at Batal Heights, Santiago City. When he went there,
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

Francisca P. Miguel told him that Michael Kevin Pineda is with her daughter at Tuguegarao City.

"He sought the assistance of the police and the Department of Social Welfare to locate his son and to
back to him, but all his efforts were futile.

"Hence, he was constrained to file a Petition for Habeas Corpus with the Regional Trial Court of Caloo
which was docketed as SPC No. 2711. However, the said case was withdrawn ex-parte.

"The petitioner prays that the custody of his son Michael Kevin Pineda be given to him as his biologica
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

[as] he has demonstrated his capability to support and educate him.

"On May 6, 2002, the respondents filed their Comment, in compliance with the May 2, 2002 Resolutio
Court.

"In their Comment, the respondent Loreta P. Miguel denies the allegation of the petitioner that he was
who brought their child to the Philippines and stated that she was the one who brought him here pursu
agreement.

"Respondent Loreta P. Miguel likewise denies petitioner’s allegation that respondents Maricel P. Migu
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

Francisca P. Miguel were the ones who took the child from the petitioner or the latter’s parents. She a
she was the one who took Michael Kevin Pineda from the petitioner when she returned to the Philippi
the latter readily agreed and consented.

"Respondent Loreta P. Miguel alleges that sometime in October 2001, the petitioner was deported fro
under the assumed name of Renato Juanzon when he was found to have violated or committed an in
the laws of Japan. She further stated that since the time the petitioner arrived in the Philippines, he ha
gainfully employed. The custody of the child, according to respondent Loreta P. Miguel was entrusted
petitioner’s parents while they were both working in Japan. She added that even before the custody o
was given to the petitioner’s parents, she has already been living separately from the petitioner in Jap
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

the latter was allegedly maintaining an illicit affair with another woman until his deportation.

"She likewise stated in her Comment that her marriage to a Japanese national is for the purpose of av
privileges of staying temporarily in Japan to pursue her work so she could be able to send money reg
son in the Philippines. She further stated that she has no intention of staying permanently in Japan as
been returning to the Philippines every six (6) months or as often as she could.

"Respondent Loreta P. Miguel prays that the custody of her minor child be given to her and invokes A
Paragraph 2 of the Family Code and Article 363 of the Civil Code of the Philippines."
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Applying Article 213 (paragraph 2) of the Family Code, the CA awarded the custody of Michael Kevin Pineda Miguel
mother, Respondent Loreta P. Miguel. While acknowledging that petitioner truly loved and cared for his son and cons
trouble and expense he had spent in instituting the legal action for custody, it nevertheless found no compelling reaso
separate the minor from his mother. Petitioner, however, was granted visitorial rights.

Hence, this Petition.6

To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

Issue

In his Memorandum, petitioner formulated the "ultimate" issue as follows: "x x x [w]hether or not [he], as the natural fa
be denied the custody and parental care of his own child in the absence of the mother who is away." 7

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition has no merit. However, the assailed Decision should be modified in regard to its erroneous application o
of Rule 99 of the Rules of Court.
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

Sole Issue

Who Should Have Custody of the Child?

Petitioner concedes that Respondent Loreta has preferential right over their minor child. He insists, however, that cus
be awarded to him whenever she leaves for Japan and during the period that she stays there. In other words, he wan
custody over the minor, such that the mother would have custody when she is in the country. But when she is abroad
the biological father -- should have custody.

According to petitioner, Loreta is not always in the country. When she is abroad, she cannot take care of their child. T
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

undeniable fact, he adds, is that she lives most of the time in Japan, as evidenced by her Special Power of Attorney d
28, 2001,8 granting to her sister temporary custody over the minor.

At present, however, the child is already with his mother in Japan, where he is studying, 9 thus rendering petitioner’s a
moot. While the Petition for Habeas Corpus was pending before the CA, petitioner filed on July 30, 2002, an "Urgent
Hold Departure Order,"10 alleging therein that respondents were preparing the travel papers of the minor so the child c
his mother and her Japanese husband. The CA denied the Motion for lack of merit. 11

Having been born outside a valid marriage, the minor is deemed an illegitimate child of petitioner and Respondent Lo
176 of the Family Code of the Philippines 12 explicitly provides that "illegitimate children shall use the surname and sha
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code." This is the rule reg
whether the father admits paternity. 13

Previously, under the provisions of the Civil Code, illegitimate children were generally classified into two groups: (1) n
whether actual or by legal fiction; and (2) spurious, whether incestuous, adulterous or illicit. 14 A natural child is one bo
lawful wedlock of parents who, at the time of conception of the child, were not disqualified by any impediment to marr
other.15 On the other hand, a spurious child is one born of parents who, at the time of conception, were disqualified to
other on account of certain legal impediments.16

Parental authority over recognized natural children who were under the age of majority was vested in the father or the
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

recognizing them.17 If both acknowledge the child, authority was to be exercised by the one to whom it was awarded b
courts; if it was awarded to both, the rule as to legitimate children applied. In other words, in the latter case, parental
resided jointly in the father and the mother.18

The fine distinctions among the various types of illegitimate children have been eliminated in the Family Code. 19 Now
only two classes of children -- legitimate (and those who, like the legally adopted, have the rights of legitimate childre
illegitimate. All children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless the law itself gives them l
status.20

Article 54 of the Code provides these exceptions: "Children conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or a
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

nullity of the marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate. Children conce
born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate."

Under Article 176 of the Family Code, all illegitimate children are generally placed under one category, without any di
between natural and spurious.21 The concept of "natural child" is important only for purposes of legitimation. 22 Without
subsequent marriage, a natural child remains an illegitimate child.

Obviously, Michael is a natural ("illegitimate," under the Family Code) child, as there is nothing in the records showing
parents were suffering from a legal impediment to marry at the time of his birth. Both acknowledge that Michael is the
earlier explained and pursuant to Article 176, parental authority over him resides in his mother, Respondent Loreta,
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

notwithstanding his father’s recognition of him.

David v. Court of Appeals23 held that the recognition of an illegitimate child by the father could be a ground for orderin
to give support to, but not custody of, the child. The law explicitly confers to the mother sole parental authority over an
child; it follows that only if she defaults can the father assume custody and authority over the minor. Of course, the pu
may adopt his own illegitimate child; 24 in such a case, the child shall be considered a legitimate child of the adoptive p

There is thus no question that Respondent Loreta, being the mother of and having sole parental authority over the mi
entitled to have custody of him.26 She has the right to keep him in her company.27 She cannot be deprived of that right
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

may not even renounce or transfer it "except in the cases authorized by law." 29

Not to be ignored in Article 213 of the Family Code is the caveat that, generally, no child under seven years of age sh
separated from the mother, except when the court finds cause to order otherwise.

Only the most compelling of reasons, such as the mother’s unfitness to exercise sole parental authority, shall justify h
deprivation of parental authority and the award of custody to someone else. 30 In the past, the following grounds have
considered ample justification to deprive a mother of custody and parental authority: neglect or abandonment, 31 unem
immorality,32 habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity, and affliction with a communica
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

disease.

Bearing in mind the welfare and the best interest of the minor as the controlling factor, 33 we hold that the CA did not e
awarding care, custody, and control of the child to Respondent Loreta. There is no showing at all that she is unfit to ta
of him.

We likewise affirm the visitorial right granted by the CA to petitioner. In Silva v. Court of Appeals, 34 the Court sustaine
visitorial right of an illegitimate father over his children in view of the constitutionally protected inherent and natural rig
parents over their children.35 Even when the parents are estranged and their affection for each other is lost, their attac
and feeling for their offspring remain unchanged. Neither the law nor the courts allow this affinity to suffer, absent any
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

or imminent threat to the well-being of the child.

However, the CA erroneously applied Section 6 of Rule 99 of the Rules of Court. This provision contemplates a situa
the parents of the minor are married to each other, but are separated either by virtue of a decree of legal separation o
they are living separately de facto. In the present case, it has been established that petitioner and Respondent Loreta
married. Hence, that portion of the CA Decision allowing the child to choose which parent to live with is deleted, but w
disregarding the obligation of petitioner to support the child.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the dispo

allowing the child, upon reaching ten (10) years of age, to choose which parent to live with is DELETED for lack of leg
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio Morales*, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

* On leave.

1
 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 7-21.

2
 Penned by Justice Amelita G. Tolentino (member), with the concurrence of Justices Ruben T. Reyes
chairman) and Renato C. Dacudao (member); id., pp. 23-30.

3
 Annex B of the Petition; rollo, p. 31.

4
 On April 25, 2002, petitioner filed an Amended Petition additionally impleading Loreta P. Miguel, the
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

mother, as one of the respondents.

5
 CA Decision, p. 7; id., p. 29.

 The case was deemed submitted for decision on August 4, 2003, upon this Court’s receipt of respon
6

Memorandum, signed by Atty. Joaquin L. de los Santos. Petitioner’s Memorandum, signed by Atty. M
Molina, was received by this Court on July 8, 2003.

7
 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 5; rollo, p. 55.
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

8
 Special Power of Attorney; CA rollo, p. 29.

9
 See Memorandum for respondents, p. 2; rollo, p. 66.

10
 CA rollo, pp. 111-113.

11
 See CA Decision, p. 29; rollo, p. 107.
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

12
 Executive Order No. 209 dated July 6, 1987, effective August 3, 1988.

13
 Mossesgeld v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 464, 468, December 23, 1998.

14
 Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 439, 448, March 19, 1985.

15
 Article 269, New Civil Code.
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

16
 See Article 269 in relation to Article 287, ibid. See also Reyes v. Court of Appeals, supra.

17
 Article 311, New Civil Code.

18
 Garcia v. Pongan, 89 Phil. 797, August 31, 1951.

 Edgardo L. Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated (15th ed., 2002), Vol. I, p. 645 (citing Cas
19

173 SCRA 656, May 31, 1989).

To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

20
 Article 165, Family Code.

21
 See Pascual v. Pascual-Bautista, 207 SCRA 561, March 25, 1992.

22
 See Article 177, Family Code.

23
 250 SCRA 82, 86, November 16, 1995.
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

24
 See Article 185, Family Code.

25
 Mossesgeld v. CA, supra.

26
 David v. Court of Appeals, note 23.

27
 Article 220, Family Code.
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

28
 See Ibanez de Aldecoa v. Hongkong & Shanghai Bank, 30 Phil. 228, 238, March 23, 1915.

 Articles 210, Family Code. The law allows a waiver of parental authority only in cases of adoption, g
29

and surrender to a children’s home or an orphanage; Sagala-Eslao v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 286
January 16, 1997.

 Perez v. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 661, 668, March 29, 1996; Lacson v. San Jose-Lacson et al.,
30

884, 895, August 30, 1968.

To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

31
 Medina v. Makabali, 27 SCRA 502, March 28, 1969.

32
 Espiritu v. CA, 312 Phil. 431, March 15, 1995; Cervantes v. Fajardo, 169 SCRA 575, January 27, 19
III v. Navarro, 101 SCRA 183, November 17, 1980.

33
 Child welfare as an overriding consideration in custodial award has been shown in several cases de
the Supreme Court: Espiritu v. CA, supra; Cervantes v. Fajardo, supra; Luna v. Intermediate Appellate
SCRA 7, June 18, 1985; Unson III v. Navarro, supra; Medina v. Makabali supra; Lozano v. Martinez e
Phil. 976, October 10, 1917.
To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i

34
 275 SCRA 604, 609, July 17, 1997; see also Bondagjy v. Bondagjy, 371 SCRA 642, 653, Decembe

35
 Article II, Section 12, 1987 Constitution.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

To the dksgksdlf jjretiop jriotrjethrpoqedsna nkonjklgdjh jnfdkglfdsgnmdflkg narwejhtiojhioszdgnd
ntiglthreao jnktrweriotlhaio hirtlqjhwiotprioptjoiarjhp

Ewrrteriotjhrewiothj34poutjeriojteriowjy opner l jreito;e jewiotjweriotjweroiptwerjt;i