In a recent decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC Third Division upheld the decision of both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals in denying the petition for habeas corpus filed by the father of two minors left to the care of the brother of his deceased wife.

The father, identified in the case as CCC, filed the petition as he sought sole custody of his two children who were taken by his wife after the couple obtained a divorce from a Shari’a Court in 2014.

In 2017, the minors became orphaned with the passing of their mother who brought them with her to North Cotabato following the divorce. They left the province then settled in another place and now under the care of their mother’s siblings.

CCC sought the court action to regain custody of his children from EEE, his brother-in-law, who was judicially appointed guardian of the siblings.

The lower court judgements rejecting CCC’s petition were based on the testimony of the elder of the two children who recounted the physical abuse they experienced in the hands of CCC when they were still living together.

The witness also recalled hearing CCC explicitly refusing to acknowledge their mother as his wife and the two children as his own.

“When given the choice, AAA (the son) expressed his preference to live with his mother’s siblings instead of CCC. Furthermore, AAA conveyed a deep-seated sense of hatred towards his father,” said the court records.

CCC’s daughter, identified as BBB, supported her brother’s testimony. She also aired her reluctance to live with CCC because he is already raising another family.

Reacting to the behavior of his children, CCC accused his brother-in-law of influencing the minors. He also insisted that he only entered into a new relationship after separating from his wife.

CCC acknowledged his shortcomings but vowed to make up for them by personally demonstrating fatherly love to the children.

In its ruling, the High Court explained that the main purpose of the petition for habeas corpus “is to determine who has the rightful custody over the child.”

“In deciding custody issues, the child’s welfare is the most important consideration,” the SC pointed out.

The Third Division declared that there was no error in judgement on the part of the RTC and the CA.

“Here, both the RTC and the CA deep dived into the significant and negative feelings of hatred expressed by AAA and BBB towards petitioner,” the magistrates noted.

Responding to the father’s vow to make up for his failures, the court said: “The path to rekindling the bond between petitioner’s children and him lies not solely in legal avenues but in the unequivocal demonstration of love and devotion.”

“This journey requires more than superficial gestures, it necessitates heartfelt efforts to earn the children’s trust and affection,” the Third Division stressed.

The SC also noted that EEE has been “fulfilling his role responsibly” while the petitioner failed to present any evidence to “demonstrate the unfitness of EEE to continue acting as the guardian of his children.”