Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 156 views

    Tribiana V Tribiana PDF

    Uploaded by

    Dwyane Yra Dinglasan
    This case discusses a legal dispute over the custody of a child between Edwin and Lourdes Tribiana, who were married but living separately. Lourdes filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming Edwin took their 1-year-old daughter Khriza without lawful custody. Edwin sought to dismiss the petition for failure to comply with reconciliation efforts required by law. The court denied Edwin's motion, stating that in custody cases involving young children, the primary concern is the child's welfare, not legal technicalities. It affirmed the lower court's order for Edwin to return Khriza to her mother's custody immediately.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tribiana V Tribiana PDF

    Uploaded by

    Dwyane Yra Dinglasan
    156 views3 pages
    This case discusses a legal dispute over the custody of a child between Edwin and Lourdes Tribiana, who were married but living separately. Lourdes filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming Edwin took their 1-year-old daughter Khriza without lawful custody. Edwin sought to dismiss the petition for failure to comply with reconciliation efforts required by law. The court denied Edwin's motion, stating that in custody cases involving young children, the primary concern is the child's welfare, not legal technicalities. It affirmed the lower court's order for Edwin to return Khriza to her mother's custody immediately.

    Original Title

    tribiana v tribiana.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses a legal dispute over the custody of a child between Edwin and Lourdes Tribiana, who were married but living separately. Lourdes filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming Edwin took their 1-year-old daughter Khriza without lawful custody. Edwin sought to dismiss the petition for failure to comply with reconciliation efforts required by law. The court denied Edwin's motion, stating that in custody cases involving young children, the primary concern is the child's welfare, not legal technicalities. It affirmed the lower court's order for Edwin to return Khriza to her mother's custody immediately.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    156 views3 pages

    Tribiana V Tribiana PDF

    Uploaded by

    Dwyane Yra Dinglasan
    This case discusses a legal dispute over the custody of a child between Edwin and Lourdes Tribiana, who were married but living separately. Lourdes filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming Edwin took their 1-year-old daughter Khriza without lawful custody. Edwin sought to dismiss the petition for failure to comply with reconciliation efforts required by law. The court denied Edwin's motion, stating that in custody cases involving young children, the primary concern is the child's welfare, not legal technicalities. It affirmed the lower court's order for Edwin to return Khriza to her mother's custody immediately.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Tribiana vs. Tribiana, G.R. No. 137359, Sept. 13, 2004 CARPIO, J.

    Effects of family relationship on legal disputes

    Doctrine
    In a habeas corpus proceeding involving the welfare and custody of a
    child of tender age, the paramount concern is to resolve immediately
    the issue of who has legal custody of the child. Technicalities should not
    stand in the way of giving such child of tender age full protection.

    Facts
    • Edwin and Lourdes (husband and wife) who have lived together
    since 1996 but formalized their union only on 28 October 1997.

    • Lourdes filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC claiming
    that Edwin left their conjugal home with their daughter, Khriza Mae
    Tribiana.

    • Edwin has since deprived Lourdes of lawful custody of Khriza who


    was then only one (1) year and four (4) months of age. Khriza was
    being held by Edwin’s mother, Rosalina Tribiana

    • Edwin moved to dismiss Lourdes’ petition on the ground that the


    petition failed to allege that earnest efforts at a compromise were
    made before its filing as required by Article 151 of the Family
    Code.

    • Lourdes filed her opposition to Edwin’s motion to dismiss claiming


    that there were prior efforts at a compromise, which failed.

    • RTC denied Edwin’s motion to dismiss and reiterated a previous


    order requiring Edwin and his mother, Rosalina to bring Khriza
    before the RTC.
    • Upon denial of his motion for reconsideration, Edwin filed with the
    Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition and certiorari under Rule
    65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellate court denied
    Edwin’s petition on 2 July 1998. The appellate court also denied
    Edwin’s motion for reconsideration.

    Issue
    Whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court should have dismissed
    the petition for habeas corpus on the ground of failure to comply with
    the condition precedent under Article 151 of the Family Code.

    Ruling
    The petition lacks merit.
    In a habeas corpus proceeding involving the welfare and custody of a
    child of tender age, the paramount concern is to resolve immediately
    the issue of who has legal custody of the child. Technicalities should not
    stand in the way of giving such child of tender age full protection. What
    is crucial is the child’s protection. This rule has a sound statutory basis
    in Article 213 of the Family Code, which states, “No child under seven
    years of age shall be separated from the mother unless the court finds
    compelling reasons to order otherwise.” In this case, the child (Khriza)
    was only one year and four months when taken away from the mother.

    There is deprivation of personal liberty warranting a petition for habeas


    corpus where the “rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
    person entitled thereto.”
    Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err when it dismissed Edwin’s
    contentions on the additional ground that Section 412 exempts petitions
    for habeas corpus from the barangay conciliation requirement.

    WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the instant petition for lack of merit. We


    AFFIRM the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 2 July 1998 and
    18 January 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 48049. The Regional Trial Court,
    Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite is ordered to act with dispatch in resolving
    the petition for habeas corpus pending before it. This decision is
    IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like