CCC vs. DDD

In custody-related habeas corpus proceedings, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration; the writ will not issue even in favor of a parent where the totality of circumstances, including the child’s clearly expressed preference and any documented history of abuse, demonstrates that custody with the existing guardian better serves the minor’s best interests.

CCC married III in 2006; they had two children, AAA (born 2006) and BBB (born 2011). The marriage was dissolved in 2014 through a divorce obtained from a Shari’a Court after III left the marital home with the children due to personal differences. Following III’s death in 2017, the children remained under the care of her relatives — the respondents in this case. EEE, III’s brother, was appointed judicial guardian by the Regional Trial Court. In 2018, CCC discovered the minors were residing with III’s siblings and initiated a habeas corpus petition to recover custody.

• Nature: Petition for habeas corpus and custody of minors AAA and BBB filed by their father, CCC. Respondents are III’s siblings — EEE, DDD, FFF, GGG, and HHH — the children’s maternal uncle and aunts.
• Dissolution of marriage and mother’s death: CCC and III married in 2006; they had two children. In 2014, after years of personal differences, III left with the children and the marriage was dissolved by divorce before a Shari’a Court. III died in 2017; the children remained with her relatives.
• Judicial guardianship: EEE was judicially appointed guardian of the minors in Special Proceeding No. 17-010 before the RTC. He worked as a seaman abroad but provided monthly support of PHP 40,000.00.
• Discovery and petition: In 2018, CCC learned that the children were living with III’s siblings and not in their previous residence. He filed the present habeas corpus petition.
• The children’s testimony: AAA described physical abuse inflicted on him, his sister BBB, and their late mother. He recounted that CCC once travelled to ███████, Cotabato, to threaten III’s life. AAA also overheard CCC say he did not acknowledge III as his wife or the children as his own. He expressed hatred toward his father and a clear preference for living with his maternal relatives. BBB corroborated her brother’s account; she stated she was treated kindly by her aunts and uncle and did not want to live with CCC, who already had another wife and children.
• Respondents’ position: Respondents averred that they had been entrusted with the care of the children after III’s death and that EEE had formally obtained guardianship. They detailed the hardships III suffered while living with CCC and expressed fear that CCC could not provide proper care.
• Petitioner’s response: CCC denied abandoning his family for another woman, claiming he entered a new relationship only after separation. He accused respondents of poisoning the children’s minds against him and insisted he genuinely wished to raise them; his new wife was willing to accept the children into their home.
• Trial court’s findings and disposition: The RTC considered the best interest and welfare of the minors, gave weight to the children’s preferences and feelings of hatred, and denied the petition. Custody was retained with EEE, CCC was ordered to pay monthly support of PHP 40,000.00, and both the children and CCC were ordered to undergo counselling, with supervised visitation rights contingent on the recommendation of the Social Welfare Officer.

• Entitlement to Custody: Petitioner argued that as the father, he had the right of custody over his minor children and that the respondents were unlawfully withholding them from him.
• Improper Influence: Petitioner maintained that respondents had manipulated the children’s feelings and statements, causing them to reject him, and that the children’s expressed preference was therefore not truly voluntary.

• Best Interest of the Child: Respondents countered that the children’s welfare would be better served by remaining in their care and with the judicially appointed guardian, EEE, who had reliably provided support and a stable environment.
• Unfitness of the Father: Respondents pointed to CCC’s history of physical and emotional abuse toward III and the children, his alleged failure to acknowledge them, and his existing second family as grounds demonstrating that restoring custody to him would harm the minors.

• Propriety of the Writ: Whether the petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus should have been granted to return custody of the minors AAA and BBB to their father, CCC.
• Best Interest of the Children: Whether the denial of the father’s custody and the maintenance of the status quo with the judicial guardian and maternal relatives served the children’s best interests.

• Propriety of the Writ: The writ of habeas corpus was properly denied. In habeas corpus proceedings involving minors, the writ issues only upon concurrence of three requisites: (1) the petitioner has the right of custody; (2) the rightful custody is being withheld by the respondent; and (3) it is in the best interest of the minor to be in the custody of the petitioner and not the respondent. While a parent generally possesses the right of custody, the third requisite was not established. The children’s own testimony of abuse and their unequivocal preference to remain with respondents, coupled with the absence of any evidence that the appointed guardian was unfit, negated any finding that placing them with their father served their best interests.
• Best Interest of the Children: The factual finding of the trial court — affirmed by the Court of Appeals — that the minors are better off with respondents was entitled to finality in a Rule 45 petition, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The factors enumerated in Section 14 of A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, particularly the children’s preference (both over seven years of age and of sufficient discernment) and the history of spousal and child abuse, weighed decisively against the father. The guardian, EEE, had not unlawfully restrained or deprived the children of their liberty; his continued custody was lawful and supported by the minors’ expressed wishes.

• Requisites for habeas corpus in custody of minors — A writ of habeas corpus in relation to custody of a minor requires that: (1) the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor; (2) the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondent; and (3) it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of the petitioner and not that of the respondent. The third requisite is paramount. (Citing Masbate v. Relucio)
• Best interest of the child as paramount consideration — In all custody disputes, the child’s welfare is the most important consideration. The court must evaluate the totality of circumstances and conditions most congenial to the minor’s survival, protection, and feelings of security, and select the least detrimental alternative for safeguarding the child’s holistic development.
• Factors in determining custody under A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC — The Rule on Custody of Minors enumerates factors including the child’s preference (if over seven years of age and of sufficient discernment unless the parent chosen is unfit), any history of child or spousal abuse, the health, safety, and welfare of the minor, and the most suitable physical, emotional, spiritual, psychological, and educational environment. The trial court must weigh these factors to determine the best interest of the child.

• “[C]hildren possess an innate ability to discern authentic love and care from empty utterances. The path to rekindling the bond between petitioner's children and him lies not solely in legal avenues but in the unequivocal demonstration of love and devotion. This journey requires more than superficial gestures; it necessitates heartfelt efforts to earn the children's trust and affection.” — Articulates the Court’s view that the father’s remedy lies more in personal reform than in a legal writ, emphasizing the weight given to children’s perceptions in custody cases.

• Bagtas v. Hon. Judge Santos, 621 Phil. 94 (2009) — Cited for the principle that in custody cases involving minors, a petition for habeas corpus is prosecuted to determine who has the rightful custody over the child, not merely to produce the child before the court.
• Masbate v. Relucio, 837 Phil. 515 (2018) — Identified and applied as the source of the three requisite elements for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in custody of minors.
• Pascual v. Pangyarihan-Ang, 872 Phil. 1035 (2020) — Relied upon for the rule that the Supreme Court, under a Rule 45 petition, defers to the factual findings of trial courts when they are supported by the evidence.

• Section 14, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors) — Enumerates the factors a court must consider in determining custody, including the minor’s preference and any history of child or spousal abuse. The trial court’s decision was anchored directly on these factors, particularly the children’s expressed preference (over seven years of age) and the testimony of physical abuse.
• Section 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court — Provides that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari; the Supreme Court relied on this to accord finality to the lower courts’ factual assessment.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, and Gaerlan, JJ., concurred. Singh, J., was on official business.