GR 111876; (January, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111876 ; January 31, 1996
JOHANNA SOMBONG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIETTA NERI ALVIAR, LILIBETH NERI and all persons holding the subject child ARABELLA SOMBONG in their custody, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Johanna Sombong filed a petition for habeas corpus to recover custody of her daughter, Arabella, born in 1987. She alleged that in November 1987, she left the then six-month-old Arabella at Sir John Clinic in Kalookan City for treatment and was unable to pay the P300 bill. She claimed the clinic owners, the spouses Ty, refused to return the child. Her subsequent efforts to retrieve Arabella through barangay officials and others were unsuccessful. In 1992, after a criminal complaint for kidnapping was filed against the spouses Ty, it was revealed the child might be with respondent Marietta Neri Alviar in Quezon City. A child named Cristina Grace Neri was found there.
Respondent Alviar asserted she took in the child, Cristina, in April 1988 after being informed by a relative at Sir John Clinic that the baby had been abandoned. The child was baptized as Cristina Grace S. Neri. During a confrontation at the NBI, neither petitioner nor Dra. Ty could definitively identify Cristina as Arabella. The Regional Trial Court granted the writ, finding the child to be Arabella and ordering her return to petitioner. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of habeas corpus should be granted to restore the child’s custody to the petitioner.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy to inquire into the legality of a person’s detention. For it to prosper in child custody cases, the petitioner must first conclusively establish her parental relationship and right to custody. The Court found petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child in respondent Alviar’s custody, Cristina, is indeed her biological child, Arabella. The identification was uncertain, and the circumstances of the child’s transfer to Alviar suggested abandonment.
Furthermore, even assuming a parental link, the paramount consideration in custody disputes is the child’s welfare. The Court emphasized that the child’s best interest is the controlling principle. The evidence showed petitioner had no stable job or income, had been separated from a partner, and planned to leave another child in the care of nuns. In contrast, respondents were found financially, physically, and spiritually capable of providing care, having raised the child since infancy. Therefore, granting custody to petitioner would not serve the child’s best interest. The writ was correctly denied.