FACTS:

The petitioners, Edgardo Tijing, Jr.'s parents, filed a petition for habeas corpus in order to recover their son. The youngest child of the petitioners, Edgardo Tijing, Jr., was allegedly taken by private respondent Angelita Diamante when he was four months old. The petitioners claimed that Angelita was entrusted to care for their child while Bienvenida, the petitioner's wife, was doing laundry. When Bienvenida returned, Angelita and Edgardo, Jr. were gone. Despite their efforts to find their missing son, they were unsuccessful.

Four years later, in October 1993, Bienvenida read in a tabloid about the death of Tomas Lopez, who was allegedly the common-law husband of Angelita. She rushed to Hagonoy, Bulacan, where she allegedly saw her son for the first time in four years. Bienvenida claimed that the boy, named John Thomas Lopez, was her son Edgardo, Jr. and demanded for his return.

In support of their petition, the petitioners presented witnesses, Lourdes Vasquez and Benjamin Lopez. Lourdes Vasquez testified that she assisted in the delivery of Edgardo Tijing, Jr. at her clinic in Manila and presented clinical records as evidence. Benjamin Lopez, the brother of the late Tomas Lopez, declared that his brother was sterile and could not have fathered John Thomas Lopez. He further stated that Tomas admitted that John Thomas Lopez was an adopted son and that he and Angelita were not blessed with children.

Angelita, however, claimed to be the natural mother of the child. She stated that she gave birth to John Thomas Lopez at a clinic in Manila and that the birth was registered by her common-law husband with the local civil registrar.

The trial court concluded that the alleged birth of John Thomas Lopez is an impossibility since Angelita and her common-law husband could not have children. It also noted the strong facial similarity between Edgardo Tijing, Jr. and John Thomas Lopez. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered Angelita to immediately release the child and turn him over to the petitioners.

The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, reversed the decision of the trial court. It expressed doubts on the evidence presented by the petitioners and ruled that they did not establish that they are the parents of the child. The appellate court ordered the custody of the child to be returned to Angelita. The petitioners sought reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, they filed the instant petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the evidence presented by Bienvenida is sufficient to establish that she is the mother of the minor child.

2. Whether the trial court erred in declaring that Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same person.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court, ruling that the evidence presented by Bienvenida was insufficient to establish that she is the mother of the minor child. The appellate court also held that the trial court erred in declaring that Edgardo Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same person. The custody of the minor was ordered to be returned to respondent Angelita Diamante.

PRINCIPLES:

• In order to be granted a petition for habeas corpus, there must be sufficient evidence to establish the identity and custody rights of the petitioner.

• The rule in habeas corpus proceedings is that the parent who has actual custody of the child is entitled to its custody, provided, that person is not unfit to have custody.