Tijing vs. Court of Appeals

Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for parents to regain custody of a minor child, even if the child is in the custody of a third person of his own free will; in such proceedings, the minor's identity is relevant and material, and parentage may be established by conventional evidence, including resemblance and clinical records.

Petitioners Edgardo A. Tijing and Bienvenida R. Tijing are husband and wife with six children, the youngest being Edgardo Tijing, Jr., born on April 27, 1989 at the clinic of midwife and registered nurse Lourdes Vasquez in Sta. Ana, Manila. Bienvenida served as the laundrywoman of private respondent Angelita Diamante, then a resident of Tondo, Manila. The dispute concerns the custody of a minor whom petitioners claim as their son and whom Angelita claims as her own child, John Thomas Lopez.

Petitioners Edgardo A. Tijing and Bienvenida R. Tijing are husband and wife with six children. Their youngest, Edgardo Tijing, Jr., was born on April 27, 1989 at the clinic of midwife and registered nurse Lourdes Vasquez in Sta. Ana, Manila. Bienvenida served as laundrywoman of private respondent Angelita Diamante, then a resident of Tondo, Manila, and would usually let Angelita take care of the child while Bienvenida was doing laundry.

In August 1989, according to Bienvenida, Angelita went to her house to fetch her for an urgent laundry job. Because Bienvenida was on her way to market, she asked Angelita to wait and left her four-month-old son, Edgardo, Jr., under Angelita's care. When Bienvenida returned, Angelita and the child were gone. Bienvenida went to Angelita's house in Tondo but did not find them; the maid said Angelita had gone out for a stroll and told Bienvenida to come back later. After three days, Bienvenida returned and discovered Angelita had moved. She complained to the barangay chairman and police, but no assistance followed. Although estranged from her husband, Bienvenida later reconciled with him, and together they searched for their missing son without success.

Four years later, in October 1993, Bienvenida read in a tabloid about the death of Tomas Lopez, allegedly Angelita's common-law husband, whose remains were lying in state in Hagonoy, Bulacan. Bienvenida went to Hagonoy, where she allegedly saw her son for the first time after four years. Benjamin Lopez, brother of the late Tomas Lopez, pointed out the boy, who was already named John Thomas Lopez. Bienvenida averred that Angelita refused to return the boy despite her demand.

Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus with the trial court to recover their son. They presented Lourdes Vasquez, who testified that she assisted in the delivery of Edgardo Tijing, Jr., on April 27, 1989 at her clinic in Sta. Ana, Manila, and supported her testimony with clinical records. They also presented Benjamin Lopez, who declared that his brother Tomas could not have fathered John Thomas Lopez because Tomas was sterile after an accident that injured his private part against the edge of a banca; Benjamin further stated that Tomas admitted John Thomas was only an adopted son and that Tomas and Angelita had no children.

Angelita claimed she is the natural mother of the child. She asserted that at age 42 she gave birth to John Thomas Lopez on April 27, 1989 at the clinic of midwife Zosima Panganiban in Singalong, Manila. She added that she has two other children with her real husband, Angel Sanchez, and that the birth of John Thomas was registered by her common-law husband, Tomas Lopez, with the local civil registrar of Manila on August 4, 1989.

On March 10, 1995, the trial court concluded that because Angelita and her common-law husband could not have children, the alleged birth of John Thomas Lopez was an impossibility. It also found that the minor and Bienvenida showed strong facial similarity and that Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez were one and the same person and the natural child of petitioners. The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, found the evidence adduced by Bienvenida insufficient to establish that she was the mother of the minor and did not accept the finding that Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez were one and the same person.

• Habeas Corpus and Filiation: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals committed grave error in declaring that their action for habeas corpus is merely secondary to the question of filiation, which they had likewise proven.
• Reversal and Custody: Petitioners maintained that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court decision and in directing that custody of the minor John Thomas Lopez, proven to be the same minor as Edgardo Tijing, Jr., be returned to private respondent.

• Natural Motherhood: Angelita claimed she is the natural mother of John Thomas Lopez, having given birth to him at age 42 on April 27, 1989 at the clinic of midwife Zosima Panganiban in Singalong, Manila.
• Registration of Birth: She claimed the birth was registered by her common-law husband, Tomas Lopez, with the local civil registrar of Manila on August 4, 1989.
• Other Children: She claimed she has two other children with her real husband, Angel Sanchez.

• Propriety of Habeas Corpus: Whether habeas corpus is the proper remedy.
• Identity and Parentage: Whether Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same person and the son of petitioners.

• Propriety of Habeas Corpus: Yes. The writ extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of liberty, or by which rightful custody is withheld from the person entitled; it is proper to enable parents to regain custody of a minor even if the child is in the custody of a third person of his own free will.
• Identity and Parentage: Yes. The evidence presented by Bienvenida is sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez is her missing son, Edgardo Tijing, Jr.; the minor is the son of petitioners, and habeas corpus is proper to regain custody.

• Propriety of Habeas Corpus: The Court cited Section 1, Rule 102, Rules of Court. The writ extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of liberty, or by which rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled. In custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary restraint is not the underlying rationale; rather, the writ is prosecuted to determine the right of custody over a child. Thus, it is the proper remedy for parents to regain custody even if the minor is in the custody of a third person of his own free will. In habeas corpus proceedings, identity is relevant and material, subject to the usual presumptions including those as to identity of the person. Petitioners must convincingly establish that the minor is the person upon whom they have rightful custody; if doubt exists, they cannot invoke with certainty their right of custody. Because the Court of Appeals' conclusions contradicted the trial court's, the Supreme Court could scrutinize the evidence to determine which findings were more conformable to the evidentiary facts.
• Identity and Parentage: Close scrutiny revealed Bienvenida's evidence sufficient. First, Angelita admitted she underwent ligation at Martinez Hospital in 1970 after her second child, before living with Tomas Lopez without marriage in 1974; assuming removal in 1978, she offered no evidence of giving birth between 1978 and 1988; the midwife who allegedly delivered the child was not presented, and no clinical records, log book, or discharge order were submitted. Second, Benjamin Lopez declared Tomas was sterile due an accident and admitted John Thomas was only adopted; Tomas and his legal wife Maria Rapatan Lopez had no children after almost fifteen years, and Tomas and Angelita lived together for fourteen years without offspring. Third, the birth certificate was filed by Tomas instead of the midwife on August 4, 1989, four months after the alleged birth; under Section 4, Act No. 3753, the attending physician or midwife should cause registration, and only in default may the parent do so, within thirty days after birth. The certificate falsely stated Tomas and Angelita were legally married on October 31, 1974 in Hagonoy, Bulacan, which Angelita admitted was false because she was a common-law wife; this false entry cast doubt on the other data. Fourth, the trial court observed strong similarities between the child and Bienvenida in faces, eyes, eyebrows, and head shapes; resemblance is competent and material evidence of parentage, and the trial court's conclusion deserved high respect. Fifth, Lourdes Vasquez testified she assisted in Bienvenida's giving birth to Edgardo Tijing, Jr., at her clinic, and she presented clinical records consisting of a log book, discharge order, and signatures of petitioners. All considered, the minor is the son of petitioners, and the writ is proper to regain custody. The Court also noted that DNA testing was not necessary in this case but could be useful in future parentage and identity issues.

• Habeas corpus in custody cases — The writ extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of liberty, or by which rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled. In custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary restraint is not the underlying rationale for the writ; rather, it is prosecuted to determine the right of custody over a child. Applied: the writ was proper for parents to regain custody of a minor even if the child was in the custody of a third person of his own free will.
• Identity as a material issue in habeas corpus — In habeas corpus proceedings, the question of identity is relevant and material, subject to the usual presumptions including those as to identity of the person. Petitioners must convincingly establish that the minor in whose behalf the application is made is the person upon whom they have rightful custody; if doubt exists, they cannot invoke with certainty their right of custody. Applied: the Court first resolved whether Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez were one and the same person.
• Resemblance as evidence of parentage — Resemblance between a minor and his alleged parent is competent and material evidence to establish parentage. Applied: the trial court observed strong similarities between the minor and Bienvenida, and its conclusion was given high respect.
• Registration of birth under the Civil Register Law — Under Section 4, Act No. 3753, the attending physician or midwife in attendance at birth should cause the registration of the birth; only in default of the physician or midwife may the parent register the birth, and the certificate must be filed with the local civil registrar within thirty days after birth. Applied: the birth certificate filed by Tomas Lopez four months after the alleged birth, instead of by the midwife, and containing a false marriage entry, was viewed with doubt.
• DNA testing in parentage and identity (prospective observation) — The Court stated that parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless modern scientific ways are adopted, and that DNA testing is now available at the UP-NSRI DNA Analysis Laboratory; while not necessary in this case, courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence when the appropriate case arises.

• "The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto." — States the statutory scope of the writ under Section 1, Rule 102, and supplies the basis for its use in custody disputes.
• "It may even be said that in custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary restraint of liberty is not the underlying rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy. Rather, it is prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody over a child." — Defines the Court's controlling rationale for allowing habeas corpus in minor custody cases.
• "Resemblance between a minor and his alleged parent is competent and material evidence to establish parentage." — States the evidentiary rule relied on to support the trial court's finding of identity and parentage.
• "Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, in future it would be useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of parentage and identity issues." — Captures the Court's prospective observation on DNA evidence in parentage disputes.

• Sombong vs. CA, 322 Phil 737, 750 (1996) — Cited for the rule that in custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary restraint of liberty is not the underlying rationale for the availability of the writ; rather, it is prosecuted to determine the right of custody over a child. Also cited at 752 on identity as relevant and material.
• Acebedo Optical Inc. vs. CA, 320 Phil 506, 511-512 (1995) — Cited for the rule that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to examine and evaluate the probative value of all evidence presented to the tribunal below, but since the Court of Appeals' conclusions contradicted those of the trial court, the Court may scrutinize the evidence on record.
• Chua Yeng vs. Collector of Customs, 28 Phil 591, 595 (1914) — Cited in R.J. Francisco, Basic Evidence (1991), for the proposition that resemblance between a minor and his alleged parent is competent and material evidence to establish parentage.
• Jao vs. CA, 152 SCRA 359, 366 (1987) — Cited for the proposition that courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress.

• Section 1, Rule 102, Rules of Court — Defines the scope of the writ of habeas corpus: it extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled. Applied to hold that the writ was proper to regain custody of the minor.
• Section 4, Act No. 3753 (Civil Register Law) — Requires the attending physician or midwife in attendance at birth to cause the registration of the birth; only in default of the physician or midwife may the parent register the birth, and the certificate must be filed with the local civil registrar within thirty days after birth. Applied to doubt the birth certificate filed by Tomas Lopez four months after the alleged birth.

Justices Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., concurred.