REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION MANILA, BRANCH ______
JUAN SANTOS DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, - versus -
SP.PROC.No. ______________ For: HABEAS CORPUS WITH PRAYER FOR CUSTODY AND JOINT PARENTAL AUTHORITY;
JANE DOE-DELA CRUZ, Respondent. x-----------------------------------------------x PETITION PETITIONER, by counsel respectfully alleges that: 1. Petitioner Juan Santos Dela Cruz (hereafter referred to as “Petitioner” for brevity) is of legal age, Filipino, married and with residential address at ____________________________, Manila. 2. Respondent Jane Doe-Dela Cruz (hereafter referred to as “Respondent” for brevity)is likewise Filipino, of legal age, married and with residential address at __________________________________, where she may be served with summons and processes from the Honorable Court. 3. Petitioner and Respondent are spouses, having been married under Catholic rites on February 14, 2004 at the San Agustin Church, Manila. A copy of the parties’ Certificate of Marriage is hereto attached as Annex “A” and made an integral part hereof. 4. Petitioner and Respondent begot two children, namely John Paul, 5 years old, having been born on October 1, 2009 and George Ringgo, 2 years old, having been born on September 1, 2012. Copies of the children’s Certificates of Live Birth are hereto attached as Annexes “B” and “C”, respectively, and made integral parts hereof.
5. Petitioner and the Respondent met sometime in the month of May in 2002, where they were both students taking up a course in Engineering in Alabang University. When they transferred to Korea University in 2003 to pursue a more advanced course inChemical Engineering, Petitioner and Respondent became roommates. Although they were not exclusively dating at that time, the two became intimate, as they were spending a lot of time together. 6. Sometime at the end of 2003, the two found out that the Respondent was pregnant. Although the Petitioner realized the shame that the Respondent will endure as soon as the news that she got pregnant out of wedlock comes out, Petitioner himself was confused because he could not know for sure if he was the father of the child, since the Respondent was dating and was having premarital sex with other men at that time. Not knowing what to do, the Respondent went back to the Philippines. Thereafter, the Petitioner, still confused by the situation,followed and likewise came home. 7. Back in the Philippines, meetings were had between the families of the Petitioner and the Respondent. In order to keep the peace between both their families, Petitioner and the Respondent finally decided to get married. 8. Since the time of their marriage, the Respondent has always been a supportive father to their children, providing his family with a comfortable life by working as the Vice-President for Marketing of Manila Projects Corporation. Although charged with the task of being the provider in the family, the Respondent still sees to it that he spends the necessary quality time with their children. There was even a time that the Petitioner braved heavy storm and flood just to come home in time to have dinner with the children and spend quality time with them. 9. The Respondent on the other hand, struggled to adjust to married life. She unforgivingly maintains a carefree disposition and prioritizes her friends and social life over her family. In the process, Respondent has failed to take good care of their children. Worse, Respondent has neglected the children’s health and well-being and even exposed the children to life-threatening situations. 10. The Respondent often leaves the children alone with little and at times without adult supervision. The children are mere toddlers and accidents are bound to happen when they are left alone, even for just a brief period of time. a. Sometime in the latter part of 2011, the Respondent went to the house of Petitioner’s mother bringing with her their 2
youngest child, George Ringgo. However, she left their oldest son, John Paul, with the maid inside their car, while it was parked in front of the house of Petitioner’s mother, with the windows closed and with no air-conditioning. For some reason, the maid left the car, leaving John Paul, all alone inside, without adult supervision. Thus, John Paul almost suffocated, so much so that the child, only 2 years old at that time, was madly banging the car in order to get out of it. It was then that the Petitioner’s sistersaw John Paul, and opened the car finding the child soaked in sweat and gasping for breath. b. On another occasion, the Petitioner’s mother saw George Ringgo playing all alone by the window at the third floor of their house. Upon checking, Petitioner’s mother discovered that the door of the fire escape, which was next to the spot where the young boywas playing, did not have any lock, placing him in grave danger of falling, had he accidentally pushed said door. c. In another incident, Respondent left John Paul alone inside the bathroom where he was taking a bath. The child slipped and bumped his head causing a huge swelling. Respondent did not even bring John Paul to the hospital to have him checked for any internal injuries. Instead, Respondent kept the incident secret from the Petitioner and it was only when the Petitioner noticed the swelling on his son’s head did he know of the incident. Even then, the Respondent refused to bring the child to a hospital for an X-Ray Examination and insists that the swelling would heal naturally. In a similar incident, the second child, George Ringgo, was also left alone playing in the bathroom. Seconds later, the child got his fingers squeezed by the door, causing bruising and discoloration for months. d. When they sleep at night, their children would often sleep in between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Respondent would always wake up and leave her side of the bed without any buffer or safeguard to prevent the children from falling off the bed to the floor. The Petitioner always reprimanded the Respondent telling her to put at least a cushion to prevent the children from falling or wake him up so he could be the one to put the necessary safeguard. The requests fell on deaf ears and the Respondent refused to change her ways. As a result, both children have had experience falling off the bed at least once, and in one instance, two consecutive falling incidents occurred in the same week. Petitioner then just placed a rocking chair on Respondent’s side of the bed to prevent the children from falling off the bed. 3
e. The Respondent has been so neglectful and inattentive that the teat of the feeding bottle of George RInggo has had a huge cut for some time before it has been discovered. This could have caused asphyxiation to a feeding toddler because of the milk that spurts out of the huge cut. It may even cause choking in the event that the child finally bites off the cut teat. 11. The Respondent does not care if the children sleep or eat on time or if they are getting enough sleep or proper nutrition. She spends so much time chatting in the internet or watching television or hanging out with her friends that she neglects to perform her obligations to her children. a. Respondent would always keep to her room, in front of the computer, chatting with her friends. This has been Respondent’s routine, so much so, that she often neglects feeding their children on time. The children would always eat past meal times because she is too busy to be bothered. b. Respondent also fails to pick up John Paul from prep-school on time. While John Paul’s class ends by 1:30 in the afternoon, Respondent would pick him up by 2:30 pm, sometimes, even much later, all because Respondent spends too much time chatting with her friends. In one instance, Respondent even totally forgot to pick John Paul up from school and it was only when Petitioner’s sister noticed at around 4:30 in the afternoon that the child was not yet home did they realize that he was still in school and the Respondent forgot to pick him up. c. Worse, the Respondent refuses to pack lunch or even snacks for John Paulwhen he goes to school, her reason being that he would no longer eat at home if he eats in school. Although the Petitioner would buy biscuits or sandwiches for John Paul to bring to school, Respondent refuses to pack John Paul’s “baon” in the morning and insists that he should eat at home instead. d. The Respondent also deprives their children of much needed sleep as she would normally read a book at night before going to sleep. She does not care that she keeps the light on inside the room disrupting the sleep of the children. e. As if the children are not deprived of sleep enough, Respondent would even bring the children to her social gatherings, whenever she goes out with her friends, exposing 4
them to harmful elements present in an adult environment such as parties. Respondent also refuses to go home early from these parties further depriving her children the much needed rest and sleep necessary for the children’s growth and development. She would often go home from these parties by midnight or even past midnight. 12. The Respondent also refuses to give the children the proper medical attention necessary to ensure their proper development. She rationalizes that any sickness or injury that the children may have will heal naturally. a. The Respondent was so much a believer of natural methods of healing that she refuses to apply even common medication when the children would get sick, not even when the child is burning with fever. In fact the Respondent refused to get the children vaccine for immunization and it was only when the Petitioner and the Respondent had a huge fight over it that the Respondent was forced to have the children vaccinated. b. There was also an occasion when the younger child, George Ringgo suffered from extreme rashes. Despite the pitiful appearance of the child who was then covered by rashes all over his body and very irritable and restless due to the itch caused by the rashes, Respondent, once more insists that the same would subside and heal naturally. Since the Petitioner could not stand seeing his child like this, he brought him to the dermatologist who right away noted that the allergy of the child was so extreme that the skin was literally “crying out loud” for help. 13. Finally, the Respondent’s lack oflove and care for her children is manifested by her failure to take time out to teach and educate her children during their cognitive years. She would lock herself inside the office room in the third floor so that the children could not bother her. a. Respondent would delegate the task of teaching the children basic lessons and skills to the maids even though the maids themselves lacked training. b. In fact, since the Respondent took the children with her last year, the children have stopped schooling because the Respondent is too busy and too lazy to bring the children to school. 14. What is apparent is that, since the marriage, the Respondent refuses to change her lifestyle for the children, or for 5
family life for that matter. She expects the children to adjust to her lifestyle even if it means sleep deprivation, undernourishment and poor mental and psychological growth. The environment that the Respondent has created for her children is overly inimical to their health and well-being that the best interests of both children are best served if they stay with the Petitioner, with temporary visitational rights from the Respondent. 15. The Petitioner and the Respondent admittedly married in haste. But while the Petitioner has taught himself to accept the situation and adjust to married life and to being a family man, the Respondent continued to maintain a single and carefreelife, prioritizing mostly her personal and selfish interests, instead those of her children. It is as if, she refuses to recognize and perform her responsibilities as a mother. 16. Due to Respondent’s extreme obsession for chatting over the internet, Petitioner suspected that Respondent was engaging in extra-marital affairs. He would often get jealous and they often fight about it. While the Petitioner is adamant that they should not fight in front of the children, Respondent would most of the time start a fight for the children to see, which, needless to say, causes emotional scars on the children. 17. Respondent, on many occasions, threatened to leave the house because of their constant fights over Respondent’s extramarital activities and on how to raise their children properly. Then, on November 1, 2013, while the Petitioner was at the cemetery, the Respondent decided to leave the household for good, bringing the two children with her. 18. Since then, Respondent had forbidden Petitioner from seeing their common children. On June 12, 2014, the Petitioner, with his mother, went to Respondent’s house in Makati to see the children. In the brief moment that the Petitioner saw his children, he noticed right away that their youngest child had scratches on his face which had scarred already. Petitioner surmised that this was caused by the harsh way that the Respondent normally treats their children, especially so since the Respondent has long nails and refuses to cut them. 19. It was then clear that the Respondent wishes to deprive the Petitioner of his right to the care and custody over the children. In fact, had he not stood his ground and insisted on seeing his children that day, the Respondent would not allow him see his children. Respondent even called security guards to make sure that the Petitioner does not take the children away. The Respondent claims
6
that since she is the mother of the children, the latter should stay only with her. 20. Article 211 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides that, “the father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their common children.” Parents’ right to custody over their children is likewise enshrined in law. Article 220 of the Family Code provides that parents and individuals exercising parental authority over their unemancipated children are entitled, among other rights, “to keep them in their company.” In legal contemplation, the true nature of the parent-child relationship encompasses much more than the implication of ascendancy of one and obedience by the other. As explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Santos, Sr. v. Court of Appeals1, to wit: “The right of custody accorded to parents springs from the exercise of parental authority. Parental authority or patria potestas in Roman Law is the juridical institution whereby parents rightfully assume control and protection of their unemancipated children to the extent required by the latter’s needs. It is a mass of rights and obligations which the law grants to parents for the purpose of the children’s physical preservation and development, as well as the cultivation of their intellect and the education of their heart and senses. As regards parental authority, “there is no power, but a task; no complex of rights, but a sum of duties; no sovereignty but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor.” (Emphasis supplied) 21. Thus, parental authority and responsibility are inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced except in cases authorized by law. The right attached to parental authority, being purely personal, the law allows a waiver of parental authority only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a children’s home or an orphan institution.2 22. Evidently, Petitioner has been unjustly and unlawfully deprived by Respondent of his vested right of parental authority over histwo children and has been ruthlessly deprived of his children’s company. 23. Thus, in view of the above-mentioned circumstances, Petitioner should immediately be allowed to have the company of their common children and to have their custody to make up for the 1G.R.
No. 113054, March 16, 1995. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122906, February 7, 2002.
2Tonog
7
time he had been deprived of their company. The Honorable Court should likewise order that the parties equally share parental authority and custody over their minor children. 24. The Respondent has the means and the capacity to bring the children out of the country to the extreme prejudice of, and injustice, to herein Petitioner. It is thus prayed that the Honorable Court immediately issue a Hold Departure Order to prevent either of the parties from bringing the children out of the country without the consent of the other parent and the Honorable Court. PRAYER WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully prays that the Honorable Court: 1. Issue an Order to the Respondent to bring the minor children John Paul Dela Cruz and George Ringgo Dela Cruz to this Honorable Court at the hour and date to be set by this Honorable Court and, that immediately thereafter, order that the custody of the minor be turned over to herein Petitioner to allow him to make up for the lost time with his children. 2. Issue an Order awarding custody of their children to the Petitioner, with regular visitational rights to the Respondent, or directing the Respondent to allow Petitioner equal parental authority over their minor children. 3. Issue a Hold Departure Order addressed to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, directing it not to allow the departure of John Paul Dela Cruz and George RinggoDela Cruzfrom the Philippines without the permission of the Petitioner and this Honorable Court. Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for. Makati City for Manila, October 13, 2014 .
8
