VOL.358,JUNE19,2001 707

Vancil vs. Belmes

G.R.No.132223.June19,2001.*

BONIFACIA P. VANCIL, petitioner, vs. HELEN G.BELMES,respondent.

Civil Law; Guardianship; Respondent, being the naturalmother of the minor, has the preferential right over that of petitionerto be his guardian.—We agree with the ruling of the Court ofAppeals that respondent, being the natural mother of the minor,hasthepreferentialrightoverthatofpetitionertobehisguardian.This ruling finds support inArticle 211 of theFamilyCodewhichprovides:“Art.211.Thefatherandthemothershalljointlyexerciseparental authority over the persons of their common children. Incaseofdisagreement,thefather’sdecisionshallprevail,unlessthereisajudicialordertothecontrary,xxx.”

________________

25Peoplevs.Pugong,G.R.No.119013,March6,1998,287SCRA158.

*THIRDDIVISION.

708

708 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Vancil vs. Belmes

Same; Same; Petitioner, as the surviving grandparent, canexercise substitute parental authority only in case of death, absenceor unsuitability of respondent.—Petitioner, as the survivinggrandparent,canexercisesubstituteparentalauthorityonlyincaseof death, absence or unsuitability of respondent. Considering thatrespondent is very much alive and has exercised continuouslyparental authority over Vincent, petitioner has to prove, inasserting her right to be the minor’s guardian, respondent’sunsuitability. Petitioner, however, has not proffered convincingevidenceshowingthatrespondent isnotsuitedtobetheguardianofVincent.

Same; Same; Courts should not appoint persons as guardianswho are not within the jurisdiction of our courts.—Significantly,this Court has held that courts should not appoint persons asguardianswhoarenotwithinthejurisdictionofourcourtsfortheywillfinditdifficulttoprotectthewards.

VITUG,J.,Concurring Opinion:

Civil Law; Guardianship; Parents are placed first in rank inmatters of parental authority.—Thereisinlawandjurisprudencearecognition,ofthedeeptiesthatbindparentandchild.Parentsarethusplacedfirstinrankinmattersofparentalauthority.Substituteparental authoritymay be exercised by the grandparents only incasetheparentshavediedorareabsentordeclaredunfitinproperproceedings for that purpose. Parental authority stands to includethe right and duty to the custody of the child, excepting only, ofcourse,whatmightotherwisebebestforthechild’swelfare.

Same; Same; The child’s illegitimacy does not in any way affectthe order of priority in the exercise of parental authority.—Whenthelawspeaksoffamilyrelations,itmustbedeemedtorefer,unlessthe contrary is there indicated or the context of the lawotherwiseclearly conveys, toboth legitimateand illegitimate ties.The child’sillegitimacydoesnot inanywayaffect theorder ofpriority in theexercise of parental authority. Indeed, Article 176 of the FamilyCode states that an illegitimate child shall be under the parentalauthority of the mother who, consequentially, should also beentitledtothecustodyofthechild.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.

709

VOL.358,JUNE19,2001 709

Vancil vs. Belmes

Democrito C. Barcenasforpetitioner.Manuel P. Legaspiforrespondent.

SANDOVAL­GUTIERREZ,J.:

PetitionforreviewoncertiorarioftheDecisionoftheCourtof Appeals in CA­G.R. CV No. 45650, “In the Matter ofGuardianshipofMinorsValerieVancilandVincentVancil—Bonifacia P. Vancil, Petitioner­Appellee, vs. Helen G.Belmes, Oppositor­Appellant,” promulgated on July 29,1997,anditsResolutiondatedDecember18,1997denyingthemotionforreconsiderationofthesaidDecision.

The facts of the case as summarized by the Court ofAppealsinitsDecisionare:

“Petitioner, Bonifacia Vancil, is themother of Reeder C. Vancil, aNavy servicemanof theUnitedStates ofAmericawhodied in thesaidcountryonDecember22,1986.Duringhislifetime,Reederhadtwo (2) children named Valerie and Vincent by his common­lawwife,HelenG.Belmes.

“Sometime inMay of 1987,BonifaciaVancil commenced beforetheRegionalTrialCourt ofCebuCityaguardianshipproceedingsover the persons and properties of minors Valerie and VincentdocketedasSpecialProceedingsNo.1618­CEB.Atthetime,Valeriewas only 6 years old while Vincent was a 2­year old child. It isclaimed in thepetition that theminorsare residentsofCebuCity,Philippines and have an estate consisting of proceeds from theirfather’s death pension benefits with a probable value of

P100,000.00.“Finding sufficiency in formand in substance, the casewas set

for hearing after a 3­consecutive­weekly publications with theSunstarDaily.“OnJuly15,1987,petitioner,BonifaciaVancilwasappointedlegalandjudicialguardianoverthepersonsandestateofValerieVancilandVincentVancil,Jr.

“OnAugust 13, 1987, thenaturalmother of theminors,HelenBelmes, submitted an opposition to the subject guardianshipproceedings asseverating that she had already filed a similarpetitionforguardianshipunderSpecialProceedingsNo.2819beforetheRegionalTrialCourtofPagadianCity.

710

710 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Vancil vs. Belmes

“Thereafter, on June 21, 1988, Helen Belmes followed heropposition with a motion for the Removal of Guardian andAppointmentofaNewOne,assertingthatsheisthenaturalmotherin actual custody of and exercising parental authority over thesubjectminors atMaralag,Dumingag, Zamboanga del Surwheretheyarepermanentlyresiding;thatthepetitionwasfiledunderanimproper venue; and that at the time the petition was filedBonifaciaVancilwasaresidentof140HurlimanCourt,CanonCity,Colorado,U.S.A.beinganaturalizedAmericancitizen.

“On October 12, 1988, after due proceedings, the trial courtrejected and deniedBelmes’motion to remove and/or to disqualifyBonifacia as guardian of Valerie and Vincent, Jr. and insteadorderedpetitionerBonifaciaVancil to enter the officeandperformher duties as such guardian upon the posting of a bond ofP50,000.00. The subsequent attempt for a reconsideration waslikewisedismissedinanOrderdatedNovember24,1988.”

1

On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailedDecisionreversingtheRTCorderofOctober12,1988anddismissingSpecialProceedingsNo.1618­CEB.

TheCourtofAppealsheld:

“Stress should likewise be made that our Civil Code considersparents, the father, or in the absence, the mother, as naturalguardian of her minor children. The law on parental authorityunder theCivilCode orP.D. 603 andnow theNewFamilyCode,(Article 225 of the Family Code) ascribe to the same legalpronouncements.Section7ofRule93oftheRevisedRulesofCourtconfirms the designation of the parents as ipso facto guardian oftheirminorchildrenwithoutneedofacourtappointmentandonlyfor good reasonmay another person be named. Ironically, for thepetitioner,thereisnothingonrecordofanyreasonatallwhyHelenBelmes,thebiologicalmother,shouldbedeprivedofherlegalrightsas natural guardian of her minor children. To give away suchprivilegefromHelenwouldbeanabdicationandgraveviolationoftheverybasicfundamentaltenetsincivil lawandtheconstitutiononfamilysolidarity.”

2

OnMarch10,1998,BonifaciaVancil filedwiththisCourtthepresentpetition,raisingthefollowing‘legalpoints”:

“1.

“2.

“3.

______________

1Rollo,pp.43­44.2Rollo,p.47.

711

VOL.358,JUNE19,2001 711

Vancil vs. Belmes

The Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that thepreferentialrightofaparenttobeappointedguardianoverthepersonsandestateoftheminorsisabsolute,contrarytoexistingjurisprudence.

TheCourtofAppealsgravelyerredinrulingthatOppositorHelenG.Belmes,thebiologicalmother,shouldbeappointedthe guardian of the minors despite the undisputed proofthatunderhercustody,herdaughterminorValerieVancilwasrapedseventimesbyOppositorsliveinpartner.

Therespondent(sic)CourtofAppealsgravelyerredwhenitdisqualifiedpetitionerBonifaciaP.Vanciltobeappointedasjudicial guardian over the persons and estate of subjectminors despite the fact that she has all the qualificationsand none of the disqualifications as judicial guardian,merelyonthebasisofherU.S.citizenshipwhich isclearlynotastatutoryrequirementtobecomeguardian.”

Attheoutset, let itbestressedthat inher“Manifestation/Motion,” dated September 15, 1998, respondent HelenBelmesstatedthatherdaughterValerieturnedeighteenonSeptember 2, 1998 as shown by her Birth Certificate.

3

Respondent thus prayed that this case be dismissed withrespect toValerie, shebeingno longeraproper subject ofguardianshipproceedings.Thesaid“Manifestation/Motion”wasnotedbythisCourt in itsResolutiondatedNovember11,1998.

Considering that Valerie is already of major age, thispetitionhasbecomemootwithrespecttoher.Thus,onlythefirstandthird ‘legalpoints”raisedbypetitionershouldberesolved.

The basic issue for our resolution is who between themother and grandmother of minor Vincent should be hisguardian.

We agreewith the ruling of theCourt of Appeals thatrespondent,beingthenaturalmotheroftheminor,hasthepreferentialrightoverthatofpetitionertobehisguardian.ThisrulingfindssupportinArticle211oftheFamilyCodewhichprovides:

“Art.211.Thefatherandthemothershalljointlyexerciseparentalauthority over the persons of their common children. In case ofdisagreement, the father’s decision shall prevail, unless there is ajudicialordertothecontrary,xxx.”

_________________

3Rollo,p.127.

712

712 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Vancil vs. Belmes

Indeed, being the natural mother of minor Vincent,respondenthasthecorrespondingnaturalandlegalrighttohis custody. In Sagala­Eslao vs. Court of Appeals,

4 this

Courtheld:

“Ofconsiderableimportanceistherulelongacceptedbythecourtsthat ‘the right of parents to the custody of theirminor children isoneofthenaturalrightsincidenttoparenthood,arightsupportedbylawandsoundpublicpolicy.Therightisaninherentone,whichisnotcreatedbythestateordecisionsofthecourts,butderivesfromthenatureoftheparentalrelationship.”

PetitionercontendsthatsheismorequalifiedasguardianofVincent.

Petitioner’s claim to be the guardian of saidminor canonly be realized by way of substitute parental authoritypursuanttoArticle214oftheFamilyCode,thus:

“Art.214.Incaseofdeath,absenceorunsuitabilityoftheparents,substitute parental authority shall be exercised by the survivinggrandparent,xxx.”

InSantos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals,5thisCourtruled:

“The law vests on the father andmother joint parental authorityover the persons of their common children. In case of absence ordeathofeitherparent,the parent present shall continue exercisingparental authority.Only in case of the parents’ death, absence orunsuitabilitymaysubstituteparentalauthoritybeexercisedbythesurvivinggrandparent.”

Petitioner, as the surviving grandparent, can exercisesubstituteparentalauthorityonlyincaseofdeath,absenceorunsuitabilityofrespondent.ConsideringthatrespondentisverymuchaliveandhasexercisedcontinuouslyparentalauthorityoverVincent,petitionerhastoprove,inassertingher right to be the minor’s guardian, respondent’sunsuitability. Petitioner, however, has not profferedconvincingevidenceshowingthatrespondent isnotsuitedtobetheguardianofVincent.Petitionermerelyinsiststhatrespon­

_________________

4266SCRA317(1997).5242SCRA407(1995).

713

VOL.358,JUNE19,2001 713

Vancil vs. Belmes

dentismorallyunfitasguardianofValerieconsideringthather (respondent’s) live­in partner raped Valerie severaltimes.ButValerie,beingnowofmajorage, isno longerasubjectofthisguardianshipproceeding.

Evenassuming that respondent isunfit as guardianofminorVincent,stillpetitionercannotqualifyasasubstituteguardian.ItbearsstressingthatsheisanAmericancitizenandaresidentofColorado.Obviously,shewillnotbeabletoperform the responsibilities and obligations required of aguardian.Infact,inherpetition,sheadmittedthedifficultyof discharging the duties of a guardian by an expatriate,likeher.Tobesure,shewillmerelydelegatethosedutiestosomeoneelsewhomaynotalsoqualifyasaguardian.

Moreover, we observe that respondent’s allegation thatpetitionerhasnotsetfootinthePhilippinessince1987hasnotbeen controvertedbyher.Besides, petitioner’s oldageand her conviction of libel by the Regional Trial Court,Branch6,CebuCityinCriminalCaseNo.CBU­16884

6filed

by oneDanilo R.Deen,will give her a second thought ofstayinghere.Indeed,hercomingbacktothiscountryjusttofulfillthedutiesofaguardiantoVincentforonlytwoyearsisnotcertain.

Significantly,thisCourthasheldthatcourtsshouldnotappoint persons as guardians who are not within thejurisdiction of our courts for they will find it difficult toprotectthewards.InGuerrero vs. Teran,

7thisCourtheld:

“Doña Maria Muñoz y Gomez was, as above indicated, removeduponthetheorythatherappointmentwasvoidbecauseshedidnotresideinthePhilippineIslands.Thereisnothinginthelawwhichrequires the courts to appoint residents only as administrators orguardians. However, notwithstanding the fact that there are nostatutoryrequirementsuponthisquestion,thecourts,chargedwiththe responsibilities of protecting the estates of deceased persons,wardsoftheestate,etc.,willfindmuch

_________________

6Sentencedtosufferthepenaltyofimprisonmentfrom4monthsand1day

ofprision correccional as maximum and a fine of P3,000.00 with subsidiary

imprisonmentincaseofinsolvencyandtoindemnifyoffendedpartyinthesum

ofP200,000.00asmoraldamages.Seep.118,Rollo.

713Phils.212,217(1909).

714

714 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Vancil vs. Belmes

difficultyincomplyingwiththisdutybyappointingadministratorsandguardianswhoarenotpersonally subject to their jurisdiction.Notwithstandingthatthere isnostatutoryrequirement,thecourtsshouldnotconsenttotheappointmentofpersonsasadministratorsandguardianswhoarenotpersonallysubjecttothejurisdictionofourcourtshere.”

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is herebyAFFIRMED, with modification in the sense that Valerie,who has attained the age of majority, will no longer beundertheguardianshipofrespondentHelenBelmes.

Costsagainstpetitioner.SOORDERED.

Melo (Chairman), PanganibanandGonzaga­Reyes,JJ.,concur.

Vitug, J.,PleaseseeConcurringOpinion.

CONCURRING OPINION

VITUG,J.:

IsharetheopinionverywellexpressedbyMadameJusticeAngelinaSandoval­Gutierrezinherponencia.

There is in law and jurisprudence a recognition of thedeep ties that bind parent and child. Parents are thusplaced first in rank in matters of parental authority.Substitute parental authority may be exercised by thegrandparents only in case the parents have died or areabsent or declared unfit in proper proceedings for thatpurpose.

1Parentalauthoritystandstoincludetherightand

duty to the custodyof the child, exceptingonly, of course,whatmightotherwisebebestforthechild’swelfare.

When the law speaks of family relations, it must bedeemedtorefer,unlessthecontraryisthereindicatedorthecontext of the law otherwise clearly conveys, to bothlegitimateandillegitimateties.Thechild’sillegitimacydoesnotinanywayaffecttheorderofpriorityintheexerciseofparentalauthority.Indeed,Article176of

_____________

1Article214,FamilyCode.

715

VOL.358,JUNE19,2001 715

Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. vs. Cabrigas

theFamilyCode states that an illegitimate child shall beunder the parental authority of the mother who,consequentially,shouldalsobeentitledtothecustodyofthechild.

2

Judgment affirmed with modification.

——o0o——

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