GR L 8622; (August, 1956) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8622; August 15, 1956
NITA FLORES, petitioner-appellant, vs. FELISA V. CRUZ, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
Petitioner Nita Flores, the natural mother of the minor Asuncion Cruz (born out of wedlock on May 25, 1939), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to recover custody of her daughter from respondent Felisa V. Cruz, the child’s paternal grandmother. Petitioner had sent Asuncion to live with the respondent to keep her away from a suitor. About a month later, when petitioner asked for her daughter’s return, respondent allegedly refused. In the Court of First Instance of Rizal, respondent testified that Asuncion lived freely in her house and was not deprived of liberty or prevented from returning to her mother if she wished, a statement corroborated by Asuncion herself. The lower court dismissed the petition, finding no unlawful restraint. Petitioner appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of habeas corpus is proper to regain custody of a minor child when the child voluntarily stays with a third person and refuses to live with the parent entitled to custody.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s resolution and granted the writ. The Court held that the writ of habeas corpus is the proper legal remedy for parents to regain custody of a minor child, even if the child is with a third person voluntarily and without physical restraint. The right to restrain possession by force, if necessary, is assumed when a lawful right to custody is asserted. Parental authority, vested in the mother by law (Article 316, Civil Code), cannot be defeated except in cases specifically authorized by law (Articles 327 to 332, Civil Code), which were not present here. The minor’s preference or the mother’s wish for the child to work as a maid (given their poverty and the absence of dishonesty or immorality in such work) did not constitute legal grounds to deprive the mother of custody. The Court cited precedents (Salvaña vs. Gaeta, Reyes vs. Alvarez, Celis vs. Cafuir, Chu Tian vs. Tan Niu) establishing that physical restraint is not a prerequisite for the writ when a lawful right to custody is claimed.