Tijing vs.

CA

Facts: Petitioner Bienvenida herein serves as the laundrywoman of private respondent Angelita
Diamante. One day she was fetched by Angelita for an urgent laundry job, but since she was on her
way to market she asked Angelita to wait for her until she returns to do the laundry. She also left with
Angelita her four month old son, Edgardo, since she usually left the child with her whenever she does
the laundry. When Bienvenida returned from the market Angelita and her husband were gone, she
proceeded to the latters house but she was told by the maid there that the spouses left already, after
three days she learned that the spouses already moved to another place, she complained to their
barangay chairman who seems to be deaf to her please. Although estranged from her husband (father
of Edgardo) she went to him for help so they can search for their missing son, as fate would have it
Bienvenida and her husband reconciled. They made serious efforts to locate their son but to no avail
they faild. Four years later, petitioner read on a tabloid about the death of one Tomas Lopes allegedly
the common law husband of Angelita, they were in Hagionoy Bulacan, the petitioner wasted no time
and went to the said place where she saw her son Edgardo Tijing for the first time in four years, the
boy was pointed to her by Benjamin Lopez, brother of the deceased Tomas Lopez. Bienvenida and her
husband filed their petition for habeas corpus with the trial curt to recover their son. They presented
two witnesses, the midwife who assisted Bienvenidas delivery and Benjamin Lopez who testified that
Tomas Lopez cannot be the father of the child as he was sterile due to an accident. The trial court ruled
in favor of Bienvenida and her husband.

On appeal the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court. Expressing its doubts on the
propriety of the writ of habeas corpus, and the evidence presented by the petitioner was not enough to
establish that she was indeed the mother of the said child. Hence the appeal of this decision.

Issue: WON habeas corpus is a proper remedy

Held: the writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any
person is deprived of his liberty or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto. Thus it is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain custody of a
minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a third person of his own free will. It may even be
said that in custody cases involving minors the question of illegal and involuntary restraint of liberty is
not the underlying rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy. Rather it is prosecuted for the
purpose of determining the right of the custody over the child. In this case the identity of the minor is
also crucial in determining the propriety of the writ sought.