G.R. No. 124518 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered maintaining to the petitioner the custody of the minors Vanessa and Jeremiah, all surnamed Uy-Sy, without, however, prejudice to the visitorial rights of the father, herein respondent, and the temporary arrangement of the custody made by the parties during pendency of this proceeding is hereby revoked, and without any further effect. The Court further orders the respondent to pay by way of monthly support for the minors, the amount of P50,000.00 payable to petitioner from [the] date of judgment for failure on the part of respondent to show by preponderance of evidence that the petitioner is unfit to the custody of the minor children who are only 6 and 4 years old. [6] Petitioner appealed the order of the trial court to the Court of Appeals. Before the appellate court, he alleged that the trial court erred: (1) in awarding the custody of the minor children solely to respondent; and (2) in ordering him to provide respondent support in the amount of P50,000.00 per month. [7] The Court of Appeals found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals did not find any reason to disturb the conclusions of the trial court, particularly petitioners failure to prove by preponderance of evidence that respondent was unfit to take custody over the minor children. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner was not able to substantiate his contention that respondent was unfit to have custody of the children. On respondents supposed abandonment of the family, the appellate court found instead that respondent had been driven away by petitioners family because of religious differences. Respondents stay in Taiwan likewise could hardly be called abandonment as she had gone there to earn enough money to reclaim her children. Neither could respondents act of praying outdoors in the rain be considered as evidence of insanity as it may simply be an expression of ones faith. Regarding the allegation that respondent was unable to provide for a decent dwelling for the minors, to the contrary, the appellate court was satisfied with respondents proof of her financial ability to provide her children with the necessities of life. [8] As to the second assignment of error, the Court of Appeals held that questions as to care and custody of children may be properly raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Moreover, petitioner was properly heard on the matter relative to the issue of support. He was questioned about his sources of income for the purpose of determining his ability to give support. As to the propriety of the amount awarded, the appellate court was unwilling to alter the trial courts conclusion for petitioner did not forthrightly testify on his actual income. Neither did he produce income tax returns or other competent evidence, although within his power to do so, to provide a fair indication of his resources. At any rate, the appellate court declared that a judgment of supp