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 Pre-school
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 petitioner’s 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.