THE MEMORANDUM

FOR: THE JUSTICES OF LAW 1-D

FROM: THE PETITIONER
RE: PETION FOR THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD
DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2015

Issue
Whether or not the herein petitioner is entitled to the custody of the minor child?
Brief Answer
Yes, it is a natural right and duty of the father or the mother or both parents to have
parental authority to their unemancipated child. However, in the present case, where the
parents of the minor child already separated, taking into account that the mother was in
a far distance and already married to another man of different nationality, the latter with
such regard appears to be less competent to carry out its duties and obligations over
the child in the light of the fact that being a married person to a foreigner whom she
presently living with in another country, carries with it tons of dealings to be considered
and attended, that may result to neglect and inefficient performance of obligations to the
child, such is less of a desirable atmosphere where the child would wanted him to grow.
And with that, the latter is more likely has the capacity to support and watch over the
development of the child to a moral minded-person and an upright character as a whole.
Antecedents of Facts
On March 5, 2003, petitioner Joey filed a petition for Habeas Corpus against
respondents Maricel and Francisca, to obtain custody of his minor child Micheal. On
March 11, 2003, the court issued the writ of Habeas Corpus ordering the respondents to
produce before this court the living body of the minor Micheal on March 21, 2003 at 2:00
oclock in the afternoon. On March 25, 2003, the petitioner filed an amended petition to
include Loreta the mother of the minor, as one of the respondents.
The petitioner alleges that the minor child is his illegitimate son with the
respondent Loreta. He was born in Japan on September 17, 1996 as evidenced by his
birth certificate. The respondent loreta is now married to a Japanese national and is
presently residing in Japan. The petitioner further alleges that on November 4, 1999 he

caused the minor child to be brought in the Philippines so that he could take care of him
and send him to school. In the school year 2001-2002, the petitioner enrolled him at the
nursery school in Caloocan City, where he finished nursery course. According to the
petitioner, his parents were both retired and having pensions, assisted him in taking
care of the child.
On May 2, 2002, respondents Maricel and Francisca came to the house of the
petitioner in Caloocan City on the pretext that they were visiting the minor child and
requested that they be allowed to bring the child for recreation at the SM Department
store. They promised him that they will bring him back in the afternoon, to which the
petitioner agreed. However, the respondents did not take him back as promised by
them.
The petitioner went several times to respondent Maricel at Tanza, Tuguegarao
City but he was informed that the child is with the latters mother at Batal Heights,
Santiago City. When he went there, respondent Francisca told him that Micheal is with
her daughter at Tuguegarao City. He sought the assistance of the police and the
department of Social Welfare to locate his son and to bring him back to him, but all his
efforts were futile. Hence, he was constrained to file a petition for habeas corpus with
the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. However, the said case was withdrawn exparte.
The petitioner prays that the custody of his son Micheal be given to him as his biological
father, as he has demonstrated his capability to support and educate him.
On May 6, 2003, the respondents file their comment, in compliance with the May
2, 2003 Resolution of this Court.
To wit:
1. That she was the one who brought the child in the Philippines pursuant to the
agreement with the petitioner and that the custody of the child was entrusted to
the petitioners parents;
2. That even before the custody of the child was entrusted to the petitioners
parents, she was already living separately from him in Japan, because the
petitioner was allegedly maintaining an illicit affair with another woman until his
deportation;
3. That since the petitioner arrived in the Philippines, he has not been gainfully
employed;
4. That her marriage to a Japanese national is merely for the purpose of availing
privileges of staying there temporarily to pursue her work so she could be able to
send money regularly to her son in the Philippines;

5. That she has no intention of staying there permanently as she has been returning
to the Philippines every six months or as often as she could; and
6. Finally, prayed that the custody of the child be given to her as she invokes the
provisions of Article 213 par. 2 of the Family Code and 363 of the Civil Code
ARGUMENTS
First, as to the allegation of the respondent that she was the one who brought the
child in the Philippines pursuant to her agreement with the petitioner. We do not argue
on this since it is in no case, that contradicts with the statement of the petitioner that he
caused the child to be brought in the Philippines. The agreement being mentioned by
the respondent clearly attest to the fact that the petitioner indeed, with the intention to
send the child to school and take care of him when he returned, caused him to be
brought home. It might also by virtue of this agreement that the childs custody was then
entrusted by the respondent to the parents of the petitioner. As the record of the facts
will show that in the fulfillment of such agreement, the herein petitioner, in the school
year 2001-2002, enrolled the child at the nursery school in Caloocan City, where he
finished nursery course. It was the same year that the petitioner returned in the
Philippines, contrary to the allegation of the respondent that the herein petitioner has
been deported on October 2002.
Next, as to the allegation of the respondent that even before the custody of the
child was entrusted to the petitioners parents, she was already living separately from
the petitioner in Japan because the latter was allegedly maintaining an illicit affair with
another woman until his deportation. Your honors, if I may ask, just when did it takes
place that a woman most especially a mother would willingly agree to the father of her
child to entrust its custody to the latters parents after having been separated for such a
reason so alleged by her? My only point of asking your honors is to assert that, no
mother would easily agree to the terms of the father of her child, if the latter was already
separated from her due to its immoral or illicit activities. It simply manifested in the
allegations made by the respondent herself that since she willfully and deliberately
agreed to the terms of the petitioner, they still by that time, of good understanding with
each other. Furthermore, be it noted, that in her statements, she avers that the reason
why she was already living separately from the petitioner at that time, if true, is that the
petitioner was ALLEGEDLY, maintaining an illicit affair with another woman, this your
honors only signifies that the respondent, on that reason alone, in herself, up to this
time, still lack of proof and inaccurate to that belief yet consequently, decided to
separate herself from the petitioner, and marry a Japanese national out of her own
selfish interest as it apparently appear.

Anent the alleged deportation, it was stated therein, that under the assumed
name Renato, the petitioner was deported sometime on October 2002, when the
petitioner was allegedly found to have violated laws of Japan. We find this ridiculous
your honors, obviously, when a person is being charge for the commission of an offense
or violation of law, the name and information of the person being charged with, must
appear in the verified complaint, assume that a person accused is an alien in such a
territory, and upon his conviction of the charges thereof, the court of jurisdiction ordered
his deportation to the country where he originated, the same information of that very
same person shall appear accordingly in the record of the immigration bureau. If we are
to believe the accusations made by the respondent, how could the herein petitioner then
have assumed that name? Moreover, it appears that the respondent failed to state in
her allegations, the nature of the offense committed by the petitioner in Japan which
preceded the latters alleged deportation, at least to qualify, presented an evidence to
support her claims.
With this your honors if I may, I urge that the respondent present supporting
evidence in this matter, and if not, I move that issue of this deportation case be
dissolved and not be given merit to effect in this case. We understand that the purpose
of the herein respondent was to convince this honorable court, that the petitioners
character was unfit, unworthy and unsuitable to have the minor childs custody. Under
the Revised Rules of Court, Rule 130 section 51 thereof, it is explicitly provided that,
character evidence not generally admissible, except in cases that moral
character of the party is pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case,
nevertheless, such an allegation indeed, a pertinent evidence to the contrary. Be that as
it may, the same cannot be proven by a mere testimony of the respondent herself,
therefore on the ground that the respondent failed to present supporting documents to
this effect, I firmly submit your honors, that such is a mere fabricated matter, a hearsay
and thus, immaterial to the case. Giving such an allegation the significance is no less
than but a prejudice to the credibility of my client. Gross enough to undermine and insult
the virtue of the petitioner to carry out its sacred right to custody of the child.
So as to the allegation that since the petitioner returned in the Philippines, he
has not been gainfully employed. It cannot even concretely established by the
respondent, for in contrast, it is the petitioner in the first place who enrolled their child in
school, it is the petitioner assisted by his parents who is taking care of the child until the
latter has been abducted from him, and it is the petitioner who took an action to have his
child in custody upon their separation considering the fact that the respondent without
obtaining his permission, kept his minor child from him and hold custody, aside from the
fact that the respondent is already married to a Japanese national. This acts your

honors only represent that the petitioner has the eagerness to express against the
whole world that he has the ability to support and have parental authority over the child.
Supposing that the petitioner indeed not that gainful enough to provide material
necessities of the child as the mother, with the support of her Japanese husband could
provide, does it barred him from having right to custody? Is it sufficient to deprive him of
having parental authority and the chance to show or express love and affection to his
son? In the case of Leouel Santos,Sr. vs. CA and spouses Leopoldo and Ofelia Bedia, it
was ruled that financial ability of the respondent are insufficient to defeat the petitioners
parental authority and right to custody. To award the father custody would help enhance
the bond between parent and son. It would also give the father a chance to prove his
love for his son and for the son to experience the warmth and support which a father
can give. It is therefore a well settled rule that makes this allegation made by the
respondent lack of merit.
Finally, the respondent alleged that her marriage to the Japanese national was
only for the purpose of availing the privilege of staying there temporarily to pursue her
work so she could be able send money to her son in the Philippines and she has no
intention of staying there permanently as she was returning to the Philippines every six
months or as often as she could. This is not worthy of a belief your honor, if it is her true
intention, why did she has to enter into a marriage when she can also legally obtain
working passport or visa to pursue her work in that country? Or at least resorted to
some other much practical and ethical means? The same question arises if she does
not really intend to stay there permanently. She could have had exerted earnest effort
which best considers the welfare of the child before she marry a man which she
expressly disclosed that only for the purpose of availing privileges, neither for love and
affection nor to formally settle for good, but for reason I do not know, she did not do so.
Marrying a man solely for economic interest is a deceitful and immoral act for
nothing less. Rearing a youth by providing them their material necessity to the extent of
bargaining oneself for the attainment of such end, does not poster any good moral
values that a parent must present to a child, which is a very essential factor for them to
be developed into a person with an upright character, and in becoming a responsible
and resourceful member of the society, which our laws governing the family relations
ultimate end. We therefore strongly believe your honors that these acts of the
respondent, clearly and substantially, enough reason that this court may compel to
separate the minor child from her mother as provided for in the provisions of the law
which states that No child under seven years of age shall be separated from the
mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise (Article 213
paragraph 2 0f the Family Code), and In all questions on the care, custody, education

and property of children, the latters welfare shall be paramount. No mother shall be
separated from her child under seven years of age, unless the court finds compelling
reasons for such measures (Article 363 of the New Civil Code.)

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premise considered, it being respectfully prayed for that this honorable
court grant the petition for the custody of the minor child in favor the petitioner, the
biological father, and that all allegations made by the respondent be not given any merit
to effect in this case, on the ground that those were being purely mechanized and
orchestrated, which veracity can neither be established nor proven by the latter.
Other just and equitable reliefs under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for.

Respectfully submitted:

Atty. Rene Angelo T. Sayago

Counsel for the petitioner