VOL.242,MARCH16,1995 407

Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R.No.113054.March16,1995.*

LEOUEL SANTOS, SR., petitioner­appellant, vs. COURTOFAPPEALS, and SPOUSES LEOPOLDO andOFELIABEDIA,respondents­appellees.

Civil Law; Family Code; Parent and Child; The right ofcustody accorded to parents springs from the exercise of parentalauthority.—The right of custody accorded to parents springs fromthe exercise of parental authority. Parental authority or patriapotestas inRomanLawisthe juridical institutionwherebyparentsrightfully assume control and protection of their unemancipatedchildrentotheextentrequiredbythelatter’sneeds.Itisamassofrights and obligations which the law grants to parents for thepurposeofthechildren’sphysicalpreservationanddevelopment,aswell as the cultivation of their intellect and the education of theirheartandsenses.Asregardsparentalauthority,“thereisnopower,butatask;nocomplexofrights,butasumofduties;nosovereigntybutasacredtrustforthewelfareoftheminor.”

Same; Same; Same; Parental authority and responsibility areinalienable and may not be transferred or renounced except in casesauthorized by law.—Parental authority and responsibility areinalienableandmaynotbetransferredorrenouncedexceptincasesauthorizedbylaw.Therightattachedtoparentalauthority,beingpurelypersonal,thelawallowsawaiverofparentalauthorityonlyin cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a children’shomeoranorphaninstitution.Whenaparententruststhecustodyof a minor to another, such as a friend or godfather, even in adocument, what is given ismerely temporary custody and it doesnot constitute a renunciation of parental authority. Even if adefiniterenunciationismanifest,thelawstilldisallowsthesame.

Same; Same; Same; The father and mother, being the naturalguardians of unemancipated children, are duty­bound and entitledto keep them in their custody and company.—The father andmother, being the natural guardians of unemancipated children,are duty­bound and entitled to keep them in their custody andcompany.Thechild’swelfareisalwaystheparamountconsiderationinallquestionsconcerninghiscareandcustody.

_______________

*THIRDDIVISION.

408

408 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Same; Only in case of the parents’ death, absenceor unsuitability may substitute parental authority be exercised bythe surviving grandparent.—The law vests on the father andmother joint parental authority over the persons of their commonchildren. In case of absence or death of either parent, the parentpresent shall continue exercising parental authority.Onlyincaseoftheparents’death,absenceorunsuitabilitymaysubstituteparentalauthoritybeexercisedbythesurvivinggrandparent.

Same; Same; Same; Private respondents’ demonstrated love andaffection for the boy, notwithstanding, the legitimate father is stillpreferred over the grandparents.—We find the aforementionedconsiderations insufficient to defeat petitioner’s parental authorityand the concomitant right to have custody over theminor LeouelSantos, Jr., particularly since he has not been shown to be anunsuitable and unfit parent. Private respondents’ demonstratedlove and affection for the boy, notwithstanding, the legitimatefatherisstillpreferredoverthegrandparents.Thelatter’swealthisnotadecidingfactor,particularlybecausethereisnoproofthatatthepresenttime,petitionerisinnopositiontosupporttheboy.Thefact thathewasunable toprovide financial support forhisminorsonfrombirthuptooverthreeyearswhenhetooktheboyfromhisin­lawswithoutpermission,shouldnotbesufficientreasontostriphimofhispermanentrighttothechild’scustody.Whilepetitioner’sprevious inattention is inexcusable and merits only the severestcriticism,itcannotbeconstruedasabandonment.

PETITIONforreviewofadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.Elam Law Officesforpetitioner.Manuel S. Gemarinoforprivaterespondents.

ROMERO,J.:

In this petition for review, we are asked to overturn thedecision of the Court of Appeals

1 granting custody of six­

yearold

_______________

1CA­GRCVNo. 30563, “In thematter of petition for care, custody

and control of minor Leouel Santos, Jr., spouses Leopoldo and Ofelia

Bedia, petitioners­appellees, v. Leouel Santos, Sr., respondent­

appellant,”Rollo,p.21.

409

VOL.242,MARCH16,1995 409

Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

LeouelSantos,Jr.tohismaternalgrandparentsandnottohis father, Santos, Sr.What is sought is a decisionwhichshoulddefinitivelysettlethematterofthecare,custodyand

controloftheboy.Happily,unlikeKingSolomon,weneednotmerelyrely

ona“wiseandunderstandingheart,”forthereisman’slawtoguideusandthatis,theFamilyCode.

Theantecedentfactsgivingrisetothecaseatbenchareasfollows:

Petitioner Leouel Santos, Sr., an army lieutenant, andJuliaBedia, a nurse by profession,weremarried in IloiloCity in 1986. Their union begot only one child, LeouelSantos,Jr.whowasbornJuly18,1987.

From the time the boy was released from the hospitaluntil sometime thereafter, he had been in the care andcustodyofhismaternalgrandparents,privaterespondentsherein,LeopoldoandOfeliaBedia.

Petitionerandwife Juliaagreed toplaceLeouel, Jr. inthe temporary custody of the latter’s parents, therespondentspousesBedia.Thelatterallegedthattheypaidforallthehospitalbills,aswellasthesubsequentsupportoftheboybecausepetitionercouldnotaffordtodoso.

Theboy’smother,Julia­Bedia­Santos,leftfortheUnitedStatesinMay1988towork.PetitionerallegedthatheisnotawareofherwhereaboutsandhiseffortstolocateherintheUnitedStatesprovedfutile.Privaterespondentsclaimthatalthough abroad, their daughter Julia had been sendingfinancialsupporttothemforherson.

On September 2, 1990, petitioner along with his twobrothers,visitedtheBediahousehold,wherethree­yearoldLeouel, Jr.was staying.Private respondents contend thatthrough deceit and false pretensions, petitioner abductedthe boy and clandestinely spirited him away to hishometowninBacong,NegrosOriental.

The spouses Bedia then filed a “Petition for Care,Custody and Control of Minor Ward Leouel Santos, Jr.,”beforetheRegionalTrialCourtofIloiloCity,withSantos,Sr.asrespondent.

2

_______________

2Spec.Proc.No.4588,RegionalTrialCourt, IloiloCity,Branch29,

JudgeRicardoP.Galvez,presiding.

410

410 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

Afteranex­partehearingonOctober8,1990,thetrialcourtissued an order on the sameday awarding custody of thechildLeouelSantos,Jr.tohisgrandparents,LeopoldoandOfeliaBedia.

3

PetitionerappealedthisOrdertotheCourtofAppeals.4

In its decision datedApril 30, 1992, respondent appellatecourt affirmed the trial court’s order.

5 His motion for

reconsiderationhavingbeendenied,6petitionernowbrings

theinstantpetitionforreviewforareversaloftheappellatecourt’sdecision.

The Court of Appeals erred, according to petitioner, inawardingcustodyoftheboytohisgrandparentsandnotto

himself. He contends that since private respondents havefailed to show that petitioner is an unfit and unsuitablefather, substitute parental authority granted to the boy’sgrandparents under Art. 214 of the Family Code isinappropriate.

Petitioner adds that the reasons relied upon by theprivate respondents in having custody over the boy, areflimsy and insufficient to deprive him of his natural andlegalrighttohavecustody.

On the other hand, private respondents aver that theycan provide an air­conditioned room for the boy and thatpetitionerwouldnotbeinapositiontotakecareofhissonsince he has to be assigned to different places. They alsoallegethat thepetitionerdidnotgiveasinglecentavo forthe boy’s support and maintenance. When the boy wasabouttobereleasedfromthehospital, theyweretheoneswhopaidthefeesbecausetheirdaughterandpetitionerhadnomoney.Besides,JuliaBedia­Santos,theirdaughter,hadentrusted the boy to them before she left for the UnitedStates.Furthermore,petitioner’suseoftrickeryanddeceitin abducting the child in 1990, after being hospitablytreated by private respondents, does not speakwell of hisfitnessandsuitabilityasaparent.

TheBediasarguethatalthoughthe lawrecognizestheright of a parent to his child’s custody, ultimately theprimaryconsider­

_______________

3Rollo,p.50.4DocketedasCA­G.R.CVNo.30563.5PennedbyJusticeSerafinV.C.Guingona,withJusticesVicenteV.

MendozaandJaimeM.Lantin,concurring;Rollo,p.21.6ResolutiondatedNovember16,1993,Rollo,p.34.

411

VOL.242,MARCH16,1995 411

Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

ation iswhat is best for the happiness andwelfare of thelatter. As maternal grandparents who have amplydemonstratedtheir loveandaffectionfortheboysincehisinfancy,theyclaimtobeinthebestpositiontopromotethechild’swelfare.

The issue toberesolvedhereboilsdowntowhoshouldproperlybeawardedcustodyoftheminorLeouelSantos,Jr.

Therightofcustodyaccordedtoparentsspringsfromtheexerciseofparentalauthority.ParentalauthorityorpatriapotestasinRomanLawisthejuridicalinstitutionwherebyparents rightfully assume control and protection of theirunemancipated children to the extent required by thelatter’sneeds.

7It isamassofrightsandobligationswhich

the lawgrants toparents for thepurposeof thechildren’sphysical preservation and development, as well as thecultivationoftheirintellectandtheeducationoftheirheartand senses.

8 As regards parental authority, “there is no

power,butatask;nocomplexofrights,butasumofduties;

no sovereignty but a sacred trust for the welfare of theminor.”

9

Parental authority and responsibility are inalienableandmay not be transferred or renounced except in casesauthorized by law.

10 The right attached to parental

authority,beingpurelypersonal,thelawallowsawaiverofparentalauthorityonly incasesofadoption,guardianshipand surrender to a children’s home or an orphaninstitution.

11Whenaparententruststhecustodyofaminor

to another, such as a friend or godfather, even in adocument,whatisgivenismerelytemporarycustodyanditdoes not constitute a renunciation of parental authority.

12

Even if a definite renunciation is manifest, the law stilldisallowsthesame.

13

_______________

7PuigPeña,cited inIJ.REYESANDR.PUNO,ANOUTLINEOF

THEPHILIPPINECIVILLAW,295(4thed.,1964).8 Reyes v. Alvarez, 8 Phil. 732; 2 Manresa 21; cited in I A.

TOLENTINO,CIVILCODEOF THEPHILS., COMMENTARIESAND

JURISPRUDENCE604(1990ed.).9PuigPeñacitedinReyesandPuno,supraatnote7.10FamilyCode,Arts.210,223and224.11FamilyCode,Arts.222­224;ActNo.3094.12Celisv.Cafuir,86Phil.555;DeLaCruzv.LimChaiLay(CA)GR

14080­R,August15,1955;Bacayov.Calum,(CA)O.G.8607.13FamilyCode,Art.210,takenfromArt.313oftheCivilCode.

412

412 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

The father and mother, being the natural guardians ofunemancipated children, are duty­bound and entitled tokeep them in their custody and company.

14 The child’s

welfare is always the paramount consideration in allquestionsconcerninghiscareandcustody.

15

The law vests on the father andmother joint parentalauthority over the persons of their common children.

16 In

case of absenceordeathof either parent, the parent presentshall continue exercising parental authority.

17Only incase

of the parents’ death, absence or unsuitability maysubstituteparentalauthoritybeexercisedbythesurvivinggrandparent.

18Thesituationobtaininginthecaseatbench

isonewherethemotheroftheminorSantos,Jr.,isworkingintheUnitedStateswhilethefather,petitionerSantos,Sr.,ispresent.Notonlyaretheyphysicallyapartbutarealsoemotionally separated. There has been no decree of legalseparationandpetitioner’sattempttoobtainanannulmentofthemarriageonthegroundofpsychologicalincapacityofhiswifehasfailed.

19

Petitionerassailsthedecisionsofboththetrialcourtandtheappellatecourttoawardcustodyofhisminorsontohisparents­in­law,theBediaspousesonthegroundthatunderArt.214oftheFamilyCode,substituteparentalauthorityof the grandparents is proper onlywhenbothparentsare

dead,absentorunsuitable.Petitioner’sunfitness,accordingto him, has not been successfully shown by privaterespondents.

The Court of Appeals held that although there is noevidencetoshowthatpetitioner(Santos,Sr.)is“depraved,ahabitual

_______________

14FamilyCode,Art.209and211;Aldecoav.HongkongandShanghai

Bank,30Phil.228citedinA.Tolentino,supraatp.618.15 Art. 8, Pres. Decree No. 603, Child and Youth Welfare Code;

Cervantesv.Fajardo,G.R.No.79955,January27,1989,169SCRA575;

Unsonv.Navarro,L­52242,November17,1980,101SCRA182.16FamilyCode,Art.211.17FamilyCode,Art.212.18FamilyCode,Art.214.19OnJanuary4,1995,theCourten banc,deniedLeouelSantos,Sr.’s

petitionforreviewwherehesoughttohavehismarriagetoJuliaBedia­

Santos annulled on the ground of psychological incapacity. Leouel

Santos v.Hon. Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario Bedia­Santos, G.R.

No.112019.

413

VOL.242,MARCH16,1995 413

Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

drunkardorpoor,hemayneverthelessbeconsidered,asheis in fact so considered, to be unsuitable to be allowed tohavecustodyofminorLeouelSantos,Jr.”

20

The respondent appellate court, in affirming the trialcourt’s order of October 8, 1990, adopted as its own thelatter’sobservations,towit:

“Fromtheevidenceadduced,thisCourtisoftheopinionthatitistobe (sic) best interest of the minor Leouel Santos, Jr. that he beplaced under the care, custody, and control of his maternalgrandparents, the petitioners herein. The petitioners have amplydemonstrated their love and devotion to their grandsonwhile thenatural father, respondent herein, has shown little interest in hiswelfare as reflected byhis conduct in thepast.Moreover, the factthat petitioners are well­off financially, should be carefullyconsideredinawardingtothemthecustodyoftheminorherein,lestthe breaking of such ties with his maternal grandparents mightdeprivetheboyofaneventualcollegeeducationandothermaterialadvantages(Consaulvs.Consaul, 63N.Y.S. 688)Respondent hadnevergivenanypreviousfinancialsupporttohisson,while,uponthe other hand, the latter receives so much bounty from hismaternal grandparents and his mother as well, who is nowgainfully employed in the United States. Moreover, the fact thatrespondent, as a military personnel who has to shuttle from oneassignment to another, and, in these troubled times, may havepressing and compelling military duties which may prevent himfromattendingtohissonattimeswhenthelatterneedshimmost,militatesstronglyagainstsaidrespondent.Additionally,thechildissicklyandasthmaticandneedsthelovingandtendercareofthosewhocanprovideforit.”

21

We find the aforementioned considerations insufficient todefeatpetitioner’s parental authorityand the concomitantright to have custody over the minor Leouel Santos, Jr.,particularly since he has not been shown to be anunsuitable and unfit parent. Private respondents’demonstrated love and affection for the boy,notwithstanding,thelegitimatefatherisstillpreferredoverthe grandparents.

22 The latter’s wealth is not a deciding

factor, particularly because there is no proof that at thepresenttime,

_______________

20Rollo,p.29.21Rollo,pp.31­32.22Bacayov.Calum,(CA)53O.G.8607.

414

414 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

petitionerisinnopositiontosupporttheboy.Thefactthathewasunabletoprovidefinancialsupportforhisminorsonfrombirthuptooverthreeyearswhenhetooktheboyfromhis in­laws without permission, should not be sufficientreason to strip him of his permanent right to the child’scustody. While petitioner’s previous inattention isinexcusableandmeritsonlytheseverestcriticism,itcannotbe construed as abandonment. His appeal of theunfavorabledecisionagainsthimandhiseffortstokeephisonlychildinhiscustodymayberegardedasseriouseffortsto rectify his pastmisdeeds. To award him custodywouldhelp enhance the bond between parent and son. It wouldalsogive the fathera chance toprovehis love forhis sonandforthesontoexperiencethewarmthandsupportwhichafathercangive.

His being a soldier is likewise no bar to allowing himcustody over the body. Somanymen in uniformwho areassigned todifferentparts of the country in the service ofthenation,arestillthenaturalguardiansoftheirchildren.It isnot just todepriveoursoldiersofauthority,careandcustody over their childrenmerely because of the normalconsequences of their duties and assignments, such astemporaryseparationfromtheirfamilies.

Petitioner’semploymentoftrickeryinspiritingawayhisboyfromhisin­laws,thoughunjustifiable,islikewisenotagroundtowrestcustodyfromhim.

Privaterespondents’attachmenttotheyoungboywhomtheyhaverearedforthepastthreeyearsisunderstandable.Stillandall,thelawconsidersthenaturalloveofaparenttooutweighthatofthegrandparents,suchthatonlywhentheparentpresent isshowntobeunfitorunsuitablemaythegrandparentsexercise substituteparentalauthority,afactwhichhasnotbeenprovenhere.

The strong bonds of love and affection possessed byprivaterespondentsasgrandparentsshouldnotbeseenasincompatiblewithpetitioner’srighttocustodyoverthechild

asafather.Moreover,whoistosaywhetherthepetitioner’sfinancialstandingmayimproveinthefuture?

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.ThedecisionoftherespondentCourtofAppealsdatedApril30,1992aswellasitsResolutiondatedNovember13,1992areherebyREVERSED and SET ASIDE. Custody over the minorLeouelSantosJr.isawardedtohislegitimatefather,hereinpetitionerLeouelSantos,

415

VOL.242,MARCH16,1995 415

Montejo vs. Commission on Elections

Sr.SOORDERED.

Feliciano (Chairman), Melo, Vitug andFrancisco,JJ.,concur.

Petition granted.

Note.—TheSupremeCourt gives effect to thepolicy oftheCivilCodeandtheFamilyCodetoliberalizetheruleonthe investigation of the paternity of illegitimate children.(Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals,201SCRA675[1991])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.