GR L 1155; (June, 1947) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1155; June 30, 1947
SORIA DIAZ, recurrente-apelante, vs. SERVANDO ESTRERA y SOLEDAD DE LOS SANTOS, recurridos-apelados.
FACTS
The petitioner, Soria Diaz, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to compel the respondents, the spouses Servando Estrera and Soledad de los Santos, to deliver to her the custody of her two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Dulcisima Diaz. The undisputed facts are: Soria Diaz worked as a maid in the respondents’ house; Servando Estrera had relations with her, resulting in the birth of Dulcisima on January 19, 1944; Soria continued working for the respondents until early August 1946, when she left their house and returned to her hometown, taking the child with her. There is a conflict regarding how the child returned to the respondents’ custody. The petitioner alleges the respondents used force with the help of military police. The respondents deny this, alleging the child was returned with the petitioner’s consent. The parties submitted the case to the Court of First Instance for decision based solely on the pleadings, without a trial. During the proceedings, the respondents submitted a document dated February 20, 1944, signed by Soria Diaz, wherein she stated she was giving her daughter to the respondents due to their great love for the child and in return for their care and expenses during her childbirth, and that she ceased her authority over the child. The petitioner’s counsel did not object to the submission of this document and even suggested the respondents legally adopt the child, stating they would renounce custody. The adoption did not materialize. The trial court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, ruling custody should remain with the respondents. The petitioner appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of habeas corpus should be granted to restore the custody of the minor child Dulcisima Diaz to her natural mother, Soria Diaz.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the lower court. The writ of habeas corpus is not warranted.
The Court held that under Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, habeas corpus extends to cases where rightful custody is withheld from the person entitled thereto. The core issue was who had the rightful custody. The Court found the document of February 20, 1944, executed by Soria Diaz, to be decisive. In this document, she voluntarily renounced her parental authority and gave her daughter to the respondents. This document was submitted in court without objection from her counsel. The Court ruled this constituted a valid and binding waiver of her right to custody. The law does not prohibit a natural mother from voluntarily transferring the care and custody of her illegitimate child to another person. Since she validly relinquished her right, she could not later reclaim it through habeas corpus. The Court distinguished this case from others where a mother’s right was deemed superior, noting those cases did not involve a mother’s explicit and voluntary renunciation of her right. The custody of the minor child was rightfully with the respondents.