Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    Salientes V Abanilla

    Uploaded by

    Christian Paul Lugo
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in a case involving a de facto separation between parents Loran Abanilla and Marie Salientes. While the tender-years rule and Marie's fitness as a mother would typically favor her having custody, the court had not yet made a custody determination. As the parents were only separated de facto, both were entitled to custody of their child Lorenzo. The writ of habeas corpus allowing the father to see Lorenzo was upheld, as the petitioners were preventing such access, despite the tender-years rule not prohibiting paternal visits. The trial court also did not award custody to either parent through its order to present the child.

    Copyright:

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

    Salientes V Abanilla

    Uploaded by

    Christian Paul Lugo
    59 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in a case involving a de facto separation between parents Loran Abanilla and Marie Salientes. While the tender-years rule and Marie's fitness as a mother would typically favor her having custody, the court had not yet made a custody determination. As the parents were only separated de facto, both were entitled to custody of their child Lorenzo. The writ of habeas corpus allowing the father to see Lorenzo was upheld, as the petitioners were preventing such access, despite the tender-years rule not prohibiting paternal visits. The trial court also did not award custody to either parent through its order to present the child.

    Original Description:

    Persons

    Original Title

    Salientes v Abanilla

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in a case involving a de facto separation between parents Loran Abanilla and Marie Salientes. While the tender-years rule and Marie's fitness as a mother would typically favor her having custody, the court had not yet made a custody determination. As the parents were only separated de facto, both were entitled to custody of their child Lorenzo. The writ of habeas corpus allowing the father to see Lorenzo was upheld, as the petitioners were preventing such access, despite the tender-years rule not prohibiting paternal visits. The trial court also did not award custody to either parent through its order to present the child.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views1 page

    Salientes V Abanilla

    Uploaded by

    Christian Paul Lugo
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in a case involving a de facto separation between parents Loran Abanilla and Marie Salientes. While the tender-years rule and Marie's fitness as a mother would typically favor her having custody, the court had not yet made a custody determination. As the parents were only separated de facto, both were entitled to custody of their child Lorenzo. The writ of habeas corpus allowing the father to see Lorenzo was upheld, as the petitioners were preventing such access, despite the tender-years rule not prohibiting paternal visits. The trial court also did not award custody to either parent through its order to present the child.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Salientes v.

    Abanilla
    G.R. No. 162734. August 29, 2006

    TOPIC: De Facto Separation; Effects on Personal Relations; Relations to Children


    FACTS:
    Respondent Loran Abanilla and petitioner Marie Salientes are the parents
    of the kid Lorenzo. Their family lived in Maries parents but respondent is
    having problems with his in-laws. Because of this, respondent asked petitioner
    Marie to live away from her parents to which she refused. Respondent left the
    Salientes residence alone and was later not allowed to see kid Lorenzo.
    Respondent filed a habeas corpus petition which he won. RTC ordered the
    Marie and her parents to bring kid Lorenzo to the court.
    Petitioners appealed this decision but the same was denied. CA explained
    that the order of RTC simply urge them to bring the child to the court and not
    specifically award custody to any of them. Insistent petitioners, not satisfied,
    elevated the case to SC.
    ISSUE:
    WON tender-years-rule as well as the absence of maternal unfitness of
    Marie may be invoked used as a defense against Lorans habeas corpus
    petition
    HELD:
    Court affirmed CAs decision. The tender-years-rule and Maries fitness
    would favor her but not in this case because the custody of kid Lorenzo has not
    been decided upon by the court. As they are separated only by the fact, they
    are both entitled to have custody over him. Tender-years presumption does not
    prevent the father from seeing the child yet this is what the petitioners are
    doing. Therefore, the writ of habeas corpus may be resorted.
    The court reiterated that RTC, in its decision, did not award custody to any
    of the parents but simply ordered that the child be presented to the court.

    You might also like