G.R. No. 264846 , February 05, 2024
CCC, Petitioner, vs. DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG & HHH, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner CCC married III in 2006. They had two children, AAA (born 2006) and BBB (born 2011). After seven years, due to personal differences, III left the marital home with the children and lived with her parents. The marriage was dissolved via a Shari’a Court divorce in 2014. III passed away three years later, after which the minor children were left in the care of her relatives, the respondents. Respondent EEE, III’s brother, was judicially appointed as the children’s guardian. In 2018, CCC discovered his children were living with III’s siblings in an apartment. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and custody before the Court of Appeals, which referred the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). During trial, AAA testified that CCC physically abused him, his sister, and their late mother, and expressed hatred towards his father, preferring to live with his maternal aunts and uncles. BBB corroborated this, expressing her desire to stay with her relatives as they treated her kindly and her reluctance to live with CCC, who had a new family. Respondents asserted they were entrusted with the children’s care after III’s death, with EEE providing monthly support. CCC denied abandoning his family for another woman, claimed he entered a new relationship only after separation, accused respondents of influencing the children, and expressed his desire to raise them, with his new wife willing to accept them.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the RTC’s denial of CCC’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and custody over his minor children.

RULING

No, the petition is denied. The Court of Appeals committed no reversible error. The writ of habeas corpus in custody cases aims to determine who has rightful custody, with the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration. The grant requires: (1) the petitioner has a right of custody; (2) the respondent withholds rightful custody; and (3) it is in the child’s best interest to be with the petitioner. The RTC and CA, considering the totality of circumstances and factual findings accorded finality in a Rule 45 petition, found it in the best interest of minors AAA and BBB to remain in the custody of respondents. The children’s expressed preference to stay with their maternal relatives, detailed accounts of past abuse, and the stable care provided by the judicially appointed guardian, EEE, who was not unlawfully restraining them, supported this conclusion. The RTC’s orders for CCC to provide monthly financial support, for the children and CCC to undergo counseling, and for visitation rights subject to the children’s readiness, were affirmed.