Topic: Rights of illegitimate children FC 173, 172, 175-176

Briones v. Miguel [G.R. No. 156343]

Petitioner: Joey D. Briones
Respondents: Maricel P. Miguel, Francisca P. Miguel and Loreta P. Miguel
Facts:
1. Petitioner Joey Briones files a petition for Habeas Corpus against
respondents Maricel and Francisca to obtain custody of his minor
child Michael Kevin Pineda.
2. The petitioner alleges the following:
a. That Michael Kevin is his illegitimate son with respondent
Loreta.
b. That respondent Loreta is now married to a Japanese national
and is presently residing in Japan
c. That he took care of Michael Kevin and sent him to Preschool
d. That in 2001, respondents Maricel and Francisca came to his
house for a visit and requested that they be allowed to bring
Michael Kevin for recreation with the promise to bring him
back that same day. However, the respondents did not bring
Michael Kevin back
e. That he went several times to respondents Maricel and
Francisca but was told that the minor child was with his
mother
f. That he also sought assistance with the police and the DSWD
to locate his son but all his efforts were unsuccessful.
3. Petitioner prays that the custody of his son be given to him as his
biological father and as he has demonstrated his capability to support
him
4. Thereafter, respondents filed their Comment. Respondent Loreta
denies petitioners allegations. She averred the following:
a. That she was the one who took Michael Kevin from the
petitioner with his consent

b. That in 2001, the petitioner was deported from Japan when he

was found to have violated Japan laws
c. That the petitioner has not been gainfully employed since his
arrival in the Philippines
d. That the petitioner was maintaining an illicit affair with
another woman in Japan
5. Respondent prays that the custody of Michael Kevin be given to her
invoking Article 213 Paragraph 2 of the FC and Article 363 of the
Civil Code
6. CA ruled that the custody of Michael Kevin be awarded to his mother,
respondent Loreta. CA applied Article 213 (Par 2) of the FC.
However, petitioner was granted visitorial rights.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the custody of the minor child be
given to respondent Loreta (mother of the minor)
Held:
1. No. Regardless of whether the father admits paternity, the minor,
having been born outside a valid marriage is deemed an illegitimate
child of petitioner and respondent Loreta. Article 176 of the FC
provides that: Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall
be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled
to support in conformity with this Code.
2. Thus, Loreta, being the mother and having sole parental authority
over the minor, is entitled to have custody of him. Likewise, there is
no showing at all that the respondent is unfit to take charge of their
son.
3. However, the Court modified the assailed decision concerning the
child to be allowed to choose which parent to live upon reaching ten
(10) years of age is deleted since it has been established that petitioner
and Loreta were never married.