Medina v.

Makabali
G.R. No. L-26953
28 March 1969
J. JBL Reyes
Zenaida
Medina,
assisted
by
her
husband,
Feliciano Casero
petitioner
responden Dra. Venancia L. Makabali

Apo

t
summary Petitioner Zenaida gave birth to a baby boy in respondent Dra. Makabalis

clinic, and then left the boy in the latters care without bothering to visit him or
pay for any of his expenses for six years. Zenaida then filed for habeas corpus,
seeking custody . At trial, the CFI saw that the boy treated Dra. Makabali like
his mother and actually chose to stay with her, and that Zenaida was living
with a married man in an irregular mnage a trois tolerated by the latters wife.
The CFI denied the petition, and upon appeal, the SC affirmed this denial,
holding that it was in the best interest of the child to stay with Dra. Makabali. A
parents right to the custody of her children is ancillary to the proper
discharge of parental duties.

facts of the case

In 1961, petitioner Zenaida gave birth to a baby boy named Joseph Casero in the Makabali
Clinic in San Fernando, Pampanga, owned and operated by respondent Dra. Makabali, an
unmarried woman.
Zenaida left the child with Dra. Makabali from his birth, and the latter reared Joseph as her
own son. She had him treated for her expense for polio in Manila, nursed him until his recovery,
and sent him to school. From birth, Zenaida neither visited the child nor paid for his expenses,
until she filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Pampanga CFI. At trial, it was found that
Zenaida lived with a married man, Feliciano Casero, and their two other children. This
arrangement was apparently at the tolerance of Caseros lawful wife, who lived elsewhere.
Casero was a mechanic making P400/month, while Zenaida earns P4 to P5 a day.
When Joseph was called to the witness stand in the presence of both parties, the CFI found
that he never knew his biological mother, Zenaida; the CFI had to inform him. He repeatedly
referred to Dra. Makabali as his Mammy, and when asked with whom he would like to stay,
Joseph pointed to the respondent and said, Mammy. When further questioned why, Joseph said,
She is the one rearing me. (Wow big words at 6 years old)
Dra. Makabali promised the CFI that she would allow the minor a free choice with whom to
live upon reaching the age of 14. The CFI then ruled that it was in the childs best interest to be
left with the respondent. Zenaida then appealed.

issue

Whether Zenaida is entitled to custody of the child. NO. The right to custody entails the
proper discharge of parental duties.

ratio

Art. 363 of the Civil Code provides that in all questions on the care, custody, education, and
property of children, the latters welfare shall be paramount. Further, for compelling reasons,
even a child under seven years old may be ordered separated from his mother. The law has thus
created what the civilist Pea calls a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor. Hence, the right
of parents to the company and custody of their children is but ancillary to the proper
discharge of parental duties to provide the children with adequate support,
education, moral intellectual, and civic training and development, as provided by Art.
356.
1

As found by the Court, Zenaida was remiss in these duties. She not only failed to provide the
child with love and care: she actually deserted him, not even visiting him in his tenderest years.
No advantage could be derived from coercing Joseph to leave Dra. Makabalis care, in order to
stay with Zenaida and witness her irregular mnage a trois with Casero and the latters
legitimate wife.
There is an attempt to allege that Dra. Makabali refuses to surrender the boy in order to
coerce Zenaida to pay for the childs expenses. Given Zenaidas meager resources, any
expectation on Dra. Makabalis part would bedirect quote from the Courtillusory.
(Translation: Ilusyonada daw si Zenaida na habol ni Doc yung pera niya. Wala naman siyang
pera. Haha.) The CFIs order is hereby affirmed.