SALIENTES v. ABANILLA
This is a mere interlocutory order which is
Petitioner: Marie Antonette Abigail C. Salientes, Orlando B. Salientes,
and Rosario C. Salientes
Respondent: Loran S.D. Abanilla, Honorable Judge Pedro Sabundayo,
Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 203, Muntinlupa City.
Ponente: Quisumbing, J.
Short Facts and Doctrine/s: Loran and Marie are the parents of minor
Lorenzo. They lived together with the parents of Marie. Due to in-laws
problems Loran suggested they move to their own house. Marie refused but
Loran left anyway. Marie and her parents prevented Loran from seeing his
son. Loran filed this case for habeas corpus. Marie contends that the petition
for Habeas Corpus is not the appropriate remedy and that she is entitled,
under Art. 213 of the Family Code, to the custody of the minor. Habeas
Corpus may be resorted to in cases where rightful custody is withheld from a
person entitled thereto. Under Article 211 of the Family Code, respondent
Loran and petitioner Marie have joint parental authority over their son and
consequently joint custody. In the present case, private respondents cause
of action is the deprivation of his right to see his child as alleged in his
petition. Hence, the remedy of habeas corpus is available to him. Article 213
of the Family Code deals with the judicial adjudication of the custody and
serves as a guideline for the proper award of custody by the court. It is not a
basis for preventing the father to see his own child.
Facts:
 Loran Abanilla (Loran) and Marie Antonette Abigail Salientes (Marie) are
the parents of the minor Lorenzo Emmanuel Abanilla, who was at the
time two years old.
 The couple lived together with Marie’s parents, petitioners Orlando and
Rosario Salientes. Due to in-laws problems, Loran suggested that they
transfer to their own house. Marie refused. Loran left anyway and was
thereafter prevented from seeing his son.
 Loran filed a petition for Habeas Corpus and Custody in the RTC of
Muntinlupa City.
 The court ordered Marie and her parents to produce and bring before
the court the body of the minor Lorenzo in order to show cause why the
said child should not be discharged from restraint.
 Marie moved for a reconsideration of the above order which was denied
 She then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA which was also
dismissed. The CA held that the order of the RTC did not award to
anyone the custody of the Lorenzo, the order merely directs petitioners
to produce the Lorenzo in order for the trial court to conduct a full inquiry
in the matter of his custody.
not appealable.
 Hence this appeal by certiorari.
 Marie and her parents contend that the order is contrary to Article 213 of
the Family Code which provides that no child under seven years of age
shall be separated from the mother unless the court finds compelling
reasons to order otherwise. They maintain that Loran has failed to
present any evidence of any compelling reason.
 They also argue, that assuming that there were compelling reasons, the
proper remedy of Loran was not habeas corpus but a simple action for
custody. They assert that habeas corpus is unavailable against the
mother who, under the law, has the right of custody of the minor.
 Loran, on the other hand argues that Art. 213 applies only to the second
part of his petition regarding the custody of his son. It does not address
the first part, which pertains to his right as the father to see his son. He
asserts that a writ of habeas corpus is available against any person who
restrains the minors right to see his father and vice versa. He also
asserts that the complaints filed by Marie were merely for delay.
 Loran also maintains that, under the law, both him and Marie share
custody of Lorenzo and when Marie is out of the country, as required by
her job as an international flight stewardess, he should have the custody
of Lorenzo and not the maternal grandparents.
Issue:
W/N Habeas Corpus was the appropriate remedy.
Ruling:
Yes.
Ratio:
Habeas Corpus may be resorted to in cases where rightful custody is
withheld from a person entitled thereto.
 Under Article 211 of the Family Code, respondent Loran and
petitioner Marie Antonette have joint parental authority over their
son and consequently joint custody.
 Although the couple is separated de facto, the issue of custody has
yet to be adjudicated by the court. In the absence of a juridical grant
of custody to one parent, both parents are still entitled to the
custody of their child.
 In the present case, private respondents cause of action is the
deprivation of his right to see his child as alleged in his petition.
Hence, the remedy of habeas corpus is available to him.
 In a petition for habeas corpus, the child’s welfare is the supreme
consideration. The Child and Youth Welfare Code unequivocally
 provides that in all questions regarding the care and custody,
among others, of the child, his welfare shall be the paramount
consideration.
 The order of the court to produce the body of the minor before the
court was merely in line with the directive contained in Section 9 of
A.M. 03-04-04-SC.
 Moreover, Article 213 of the Family Code deals with the judicial
adjudication of the custody and serves as a guideline for the proper
award of custody by the court. It is not a basis for preventing the
father to see his own child.
Disposition: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
November 10, 2003 and the Resolution dated March 19, 2004 of the CA
in CA-G.R. SP No. 75680 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO
ORDERED.