TIJING VS CA

Posted by kaye lee on 1:45 PM

G.R. No. 125901, March 8, 2001 [Habeas Corpus]

FACTS:
Edgardo and Bienvenida Tijing filed a petition for habeas corpus in order to recover their youngest child,
Edgardo Jr., whom they did not see for 4 years. Trial court granted the petition and ordered Angelita
Diamante to immediately release the child, now named John Thomas D. Lopez, and turn him over to his
parents. CA reversed and set aside the decision rendered by the lower court. It questioned the propriety
of the habeas corpus in this case.

ISSUE:Whether or not habeas corpus is the proper remedy to regain custody of the minor.

RULING:
Yes. SC upheld the decision of the trial court.

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 the rightful custody of any person withheld from the persons entitled
thereto. The writ of habeas corpus is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of
a minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a third person of his own free will. It must be
stressed out that in habeas corpus proceeding, the question of identity is relevant and material, subject
to the usual presumption, including those as identity of the person.

The trial court was correct in its judgment based on the evidence established by the parents and by the
witness who is the brother of the late common-law husband of Angelita. Furthermore, there are no
clinical records, log book or discharge from the clinic where John Thomas was allegedly born were
presented. Strong evidence directly proves that Thomas Lopez, Angela's "husband", was not capable of
siring a child. Moreover, his first marriage produced no offspring even after almost 15 years of living
together with his legal wife. His 14 year affair with Angelita also bore no offspring.

The birth certificate of John Thomas Lopez were attended by irregularities. It was filed by Thomas Lopez,
the alleged father. Under Sec. 4, Act No. 3753 (Civil Register Law), the attending physician or midwife in
attendance of the birth should cause the registration of such birth. Only in default of the physician or
midwife, can the parent register the birth of his child. Certificate must be filed with the LCR within 30
days after the birth. The status of Thomas and Angelita on the birth certificate were typed in as legally
married, which is false because Angelita herself had admitted that she is a "common-law wife."

Trial court also observed several times that when the child and Bienvenida were both in court, the two
had strong similarities in their faces. Resemblance between a minor and his alleged parent is competent
and material evidence to establish parentage. Lastly, the spouses presented clinical records and
testimony of the midwife who attended Bienvenida's childbirth.