REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Manila, Branch ______

JUAN SANTOS DELA CRUZ,

SP.PROC.No. ______________
Petitioner,
For: HABEAS CORPUS WITH
- versus – 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 123 Bonifacio Street, City of 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 666 Rizal Street, City of Manila 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.

Page 1 of 12
 4. Petitioner and Respondent begot two children, namely John Paul
Dela Cruz, 5 years old, having been born on October 1, 2013 and George
Ringgo, 2 years old, having been born on September 1, 2017

Copies of the children’s Certificates of Live Birth are hereto attached as

Annexes “B” and “C”, respectively, and made integral part hereof.

5. Petitioner and the Respondent met sometime in the month of

May in 2010, where they were both students taking up a course in
Engineering in Alabang University. When they transferred to Korea
University in 2011 to pursue a more advanced course in Chemical
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 2012, 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 pre-marital 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 Petitioner 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 Petitioner 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.

Page 2 of 12
 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 2017, the Respondent went

to the house of Petitioner’s mother bringing with her their 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 sister saw 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 boy was 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

Page 3 of 12
 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.

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.

Page 4 of 12
 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 Paul when 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 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

Page 5 of 12
 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 of love 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 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.

Page 6 of 12
 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 carefree life, 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 extra-marital activities
and on how to raise their children properly. Then, on November 1, 2018,
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, 2019, the Petitioner, with his mother,
went to Respondent’s house in Rizal, Manila 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 have allowed him to see his children. Respondent
even called security guards to make sure that the Petitioner does not take the
children away. The Respondent claims that since she is the mother of the
children, the latter should stay only with her.

Page 7 of 12
 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 his two 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

1
G.R. No. 113054, March 16, 1995.
2
Tonog vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122906, February 7, 2002.

Page 8 of 12
children and to have their custody to make up for the 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.

Page 9 of 12
 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 Ringgo Dela Cruz from the Philippines without
the permission of the Petitioner and this Honorable Court.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed
for.
City of Manila, March 17, 2019.

DANTE ALIGHIERI
Roll No.: 12651321
PTR No.: 123456 12/31/2019
IBP No.: 987654 12/31/2019
MCLE Compliance: IV-0008269 03/01/2018
Tel. No.: (02) 999-8888
Cell Phone No.: (+63) 917 777 6666
E-Mail Address: dante@inferno.com
No. 333 Purgatorio Suites
E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue, Quezon City, 1102

Page 10 of 12
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
CITY OF MANILA ) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, JUAN SANTOS DELA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident

of 123 Bonifacio Street, City of Manila, after being sworn in accordance with
law, depose and say:

1. That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case; that I have

caused the above petition to be prepared and I have read and know the
contents thereof; and that the allegations therein are true and correct of my
own personal knowledge and/or based on true records; and

2. That I have not commenced any action or proceeding involving

the same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other
tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any
other tribunal or agency; and that, if I should learn thereafter that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before these courts or any
other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact to this court within
five (5) days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th day of

March, 2019 in City of Manila, Philippines.

JUAN SANTOS DELA CRUZ

AFFIANT

Page 11 of 12
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 17th day of March, 2019
in City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me her Philippine Driver’s License
with ID No. 123456789 issued on January 1, 2019 by the Land Transportation
Office – Makati Branch.

SANDRO BOTTICELLI
Notary Public
Commission No.: 77777
Valid Until December 31, 2019
Roll No.: 14451510
PTR No.: 987654 12/31/2019
IBP No.: 123456 12/31/2019
MCLE: IV-8260009 03/01/2018

Doc. No.: ____;

Page No.: ____;
Book No.: ____;
Series of 2019.

Page 12 of 12