Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 120 views

    Bagtas Vs HonSantos PDF

    Uploaded by

    IzzyMaxino

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bagtas Vs HonSantos PDF

    Uploaded by

    IzzyMaxino
    120 views3 pages

    Original Title

    Bagtas vs HonSantos.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    120 views3 pages

    Bagtas Vs HonSantos PDF

    Uploaded by

    IzzyMaxino

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Bagtas vs Hon.

    Santos, GR 166682, ​November 27, 2009 

    Facts: 

    Sps  Gallardo  are  the  parents  of  Maricel.  Maricel  eloped  with  her 
    highschool  boyfriend.  Maricel  became  pregnant  and  gave  birth  to  Child 
    A. Thereafter, Maricel’s boyfriend left her. 

    Maricel  returned  to  her  parents  but  then  ran  away  again  to  live  with 
    Bagtas  and  Sioson.  Maricel  left  the  custody  of  Child  A  to  Bagtas  and 
    Sioson.  Thereafter,  Maricel  relinquished  her  rights  over  Child  A  to 
    Bagtas. 

    Sps.  Gallardo  tried  to  obtain  custody  of  Child  A  from  Bagtas  and  Sioson, 
    but  was  denied  custody.  Hence,  Sps.  Gallardo  filed  a  petition  for  habeas 
    corpus.  They  entered  into  a  compromise agreement and approved by the 
    Court 

    Subsequently,  Sps  Gallardo  failed  to  comply  with  the  compromise 


    agreement  so  Bagtas  filed  a  motion  directing  Sps  Gallardo  to  directly 
    produce  Child  A  before  the  RTC  to  explain  why  they  violated  the  RTC 
    order. They also filed a motion to dismiss. 

    The RTC dismissed the action for having become moot, the RTC stated:  

    In this petition, the prayer of the petitioners is to produce the person of Meryl [sic]
    Joy S. Gallardo before this court to be turned over to herein petitioners who are
    the maternal [grandparents] of said minor.

    Since the person subject of the petition has already produced [sic] ​to this
    court and has been turned over to the petitioners, the issue on the petition for
    habeas corpus is now moot and academic without prejudice to the filing of the
    proper action to determine as to the rightful custody over the minor child.

    In view thereof, x x x the Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted but without


    prejudice on the petitioners to file proper action for custody of the minor.
    (Emphasis supplied)
    Bagtas  contended  that  the  RTC dismissal of the action was erroneous and 
    argued  that  it  should  have  been  dismissed pursuant to Sec 3, Rule 17. MR 
    was  denied  the  RTC held that “the sole purpose of the petition for habeas 
    corpus  was  the  production  of  [Child  A]  and  that  the  Sps  Gallardo 
    exercised substitute parental authority over [Child A].” It further stated: 

    Since therefore, the purpose of the instant Petition has already been served,
    as the child has been produced and delivered to the petitioners, the instant
    Petition logically has become moot and academic. Petitioners are, under the
    law (Art. 214, Family Code), authorized to exercise substitute parental
    authority over the child in case of death, absence or unsuitability of the
    parents, the entitlement to the legal custody of the child being necessarily
    included therein to make possible and/or enable the petitioners to discharge
    their duties as substitute parents​.

    CA affirmed RTC.

    SC Ruling:

    Section 1, Rule 102, of the Rules of Court states that the writ of habeas
    corpus shall extend to all cases where the rightful custody of any person is
    withheld from the persons entitled thereto. In cases involving minors, the
    purpose of a petition for habeas corpus is not limited to the production of the
    child before the court. The main purpose of the petition for habeas corpus is
    to determine who has the rightful custody over the child. In ​Tijing v. Court
    [18]​
    of Appeals,​ ​ the Court held that:

    The writ of ​habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement


    or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by
    which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person
    entitled thereto. Thus, it is the proper legal remedy to enable parents
    to regain the custody of a minor child even if the latter be in the
    custody of a third person of his own free will. It may even be said that
    in custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and
    involuntary restraint of liberty is not the underlying rationale for the
    availability of the writ as a remedy. Rather, ​it is prosecuted for the
    purpose of determining the right of custody over a child​.
    (Emphasis supplied)
    In  determining  who  has  the  rightful  custody  over  a  child,  the  childs 
    welfare  is  the  most  important  consideration.  The  court  is  not  bound  by 
    any  legal  right  of  a  person  over  the  child.  In  Sombong  v.  Court  of 
    Appeals,​[22]​ the Court held that: 

    The controversy does not involve the question of personal freedom,


    because an infant is presumed to be in the custody of someone until he
    attains majority age. In passing on the writ in a child custody case, the
    court deals with a matter of an equitable nature. ​Not bound by any
    mere legal right of parent or guardian, the court gives his or her
    claim to the custody of the child due weight as a claim founded on
    human nature and considered generally equitable and
    just​.Therefore, these cases are decided, not on the legal right of the
    petitioner to be relieved from unlawful imprisonment or detention, as
    in the case of adults, but on the courts view of the best interests of
    those whose welfare requires that they be in custody of one person or
    another.Hence, the court is not bound to deliver a child into the
    custody of any claimant or of any person, but should, in the
    consideration of the facts, leave it in such custody as its welfare at
    the time appears to require. In short, the childs welfare is the
    supreme consideration.

    You might also like