Scribd
Upload
179 views

Additional Jema

The document discusses three cases involving writs of habeas corpus filed to recover custody of a minor. In the first case, the court establishes that habeas corpus can be used when a minor is in custody of a third party voluntarily. In the second case, the court grants the writ to the mother seeking custody, as denial would defeat her parental authority. In the third case, the Supreme Court grants the petition and reverses the Court of Appeals' nullification of trial court orders in a habeas corpus proceeding regarding a minor's custody, dismissing related proceedings.

Uploaded by

lielanie sabay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
179 views

Additional Jema

The document discusses three cases involving writs of habeas corpus filed to recover custody of a minor. In the first case, the court establishes that habeas corpus can be used when a minor is in custody of a third party voluntarily. In the second case, the court grants the writ to the mother seeking custody, as denial would defeat her parental authority. In the third case, the Supreme Court grants the petition and reverses the Court of Appeals' nullification of trial court orders in a habeas corpus proceeding regarding a minor's custody, dismissing related proceedings.

Uploaded by

lielanie sabay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

[G.R. No. 34115. February 21, 1931.

FRANCISCO SALVAÑA and MODESTA SALIENDRA, Petitioners-Appellants, v. LEOPOLDO GAELA, in his


private capacity and as Justice of the Peace of Lucban, Tayabas, Respondent-Appellee.

Aurelio Palileo for Appellants.

Gregorio A. Seña, Braulio Devera and Baldomero Ortiz for Appellee.

The case involves a petition filed by Francisco Salvaña and Modesta Saliendra to recover the custody of
their minor daughter, Felicisima Salvaña, who is currently in the custody of Leopoldo Gaela, a justice of
the peace. The trial court denied the petition and ordered the appointment of a guardian of Felicisima.
The appellants argue that the trial court erred in assuming exclusive control of the trial, questioning the
wishes of the child, pronouncing the appellants as unworthy of custody without a hearing, and in the
application of certain sections of the law. The Supreme Court, in its decision, addresses the issues of
whether writ of habeas corpus can be used to recover the custody of a minor who is in the custody of a
third person of their own free will, and whether the parents can be deprived of custody based on their
actions regarding the minor’s marriage.

The court establishes that the writ of habeas corpus can be used to recover the custody of a minor who
is in the custody of a third person of their own free will. The fact that the minor is not physically detained
detained by the third person does not prevent the issuance of the writ. Additionally, the court clarifies
that the mere act of parents seeking to compel their minor child to marry against their will, or refusing
to consent to their preferred marriage, is not a legal ground for depriving the parents of their parental
authority and custody of the minor.

In re Wall (And. Cas. 1915 B, pp. 1015, 1016) -nevada case sya pro wako kita sa iyang full text gyud
G.R. No. L-8622 August 15, 1956

In the matter the petition for the habeas corpus of ASUNCION F. CRUZ. NITA FLORES, petitioner-
appellant,
vs.
FELISA V. CRUZ, respondent-appellee.

Mario R. Silva for appellant.


Felisa V. Cruz in her own behalf.

Petitioner Nita Flores has applied for a writ of habeas corpus to recover the possession of her daughter
Asuncion Cruz, from respondent Felisa V. Cruz, who, it is claimed, refuses to surrender said minor to her
aforementioned mother. The issue is whether a writ of habeas corpus lies when a minor voluntarily
decides to stay in a house other than that the person entitled to her custody and refuses to live with the
water. This question has already been settled in the affirmative.

Despite the commendable concern displayed by the lower court for the welfare of Asuncion Cruz, it is
incontestable that a denial of the writ prayed for by petitioner herein would defeat the parental
authority vested by law in her (Article 316, Civil Code of the Philippines). Obviously, such result -which
amounts to a deprivation of said authority-cannot be countenanced except in the cases authorized by
law (see Articles 327 to 332, Civil Code of the Philippines) and this not one of them.

Wherefore, the resolution appealed from is reversed and the writ of habeas corpus prayed for granted,
without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

G.R. No. 210487, September 02, 2020

MELYSINDA D. REYES, Petitioner, v. MARIA SALOME R. ELQUIERO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-


FACT, DAISY ELQUIERO-BENAVIDEZ, Respondents.

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the April 26,
2012 Decision1 and the December 12, 2013 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No.
115366, which nullified two orders issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City in a habeas
corpus proceeding relating to the custody of a minor child. Petitioner Melysinda D. Reyes (Melysinda) is
the biological aunt of the minor child Irish Elquiero (Irish). Irish is the biological daughter of Melysinda's
brother and the legally adopted daughter of Rex R. Elquiero (Rex) who, in turn, is the son of respondent
Maria Salome R. Elquiero (Salome). Upon the death of Rex in 2009, Melysinda and Salome both claimed
custody of Irish. The issues raised by the petition boil down to three questions: first, whether the Habeas
Corpus Case should be treated as a regular habeas corpus petition governed primarily by Rule 102 or as
a special habeas corpus petition which is an ancillary remedy governed by the special rules on custody;
second, whether Salome is guilty of forum shopping; and third, whether Salome is entitled to seek
custody of Irish. In view of the foregoing premises, the present petition is hereby granted. the April 26,
2012 decision and December 12, 2013 resolution of the court of appeals in CA-G.R. SP no. 115366 are
hereby reversed and set aside. CA-G.R. SP no. 113286 and all other proceedings connected therewith
before the regional trial court of San Pablo city, laguna are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

You might also like