FACTS:

Joey D. Briones, the petitioner, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus to obtain custody of his minor child Michael Kevin Pineda. He alleged that Michael Kevin Pineda is his illegitimate son with respondent Loreta P. Miguel. The respondent Loreta P. Miguel, who is now married to a Japanese national and residing in Japan, denied the allegation and claimed that she was the one who brought the child to the Philippines. The petitioner further alleged that he brought the child to the Philippines in 1998 and enrolled him in nursery school. However, on May 2, 2001, respondents Maricel P. Miguel and Francisca P. Miguel, on the pretext of visiting the child, took him to SM Department Store but did not return him as promised. The petitioner sought assistance from the police and the Department of Social Welfare, but was unsuccessful in locating his son. The petitioner then filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus with the Regional Trial Court, which was eventually withdrawn. The respondent Loreta P. Miguel, in her Comment, denied the petitioner's allegations and claimed that she took the child from the petitioner upon her return to the Philippines. She also alleged that the petitioner was deported from Japan and has not been gainfully employed since his arrival in the Philippines. The Court of Appeals awarded custody of Michael Kevin Pineda Miguel to his mother, Respondent Loreta P. Miguel, based on Article 213 (paragraph 2) of the Family Code, but granted the petitioner visitation rights. The petitioner now seeks to reverse the decision and obtain custody of his child.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the natural father may be denied custody and parental care of his own child in the absence of the mother who is away.

RULING:

1. The Court ruled in favor of the mother and held that the natural father may be denied custody and parental care of his own child in the absence of the mother who is away. The Court emphasized that an illegitimate child is under the sole parental authority of the mother and in the exercise of that authority, she is entitled to keep the child in her company. Absent any imperative cause showing her unfitness to exercise such authority and care, the Court will not deprive her of custody. However, the petitioner was granted visitorial rights.

PRINCIPLES: