Paramount criterion

In all controversies regarding custody of minors, the sole and foremost consideration is the physical, education, social, and moral welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the respective resources and social and moral situations of the contending parents. This is the rule applied in this case of Danny and Roxanne.

Danny and Roxanne first met when both already had steady jobs: Danny worked as an engineer in a big steel manufacturing company while Roxanne worked as a nurse in a local hospital. After one year of courtship, Roxanne left for the US to work as a nurse in a California hospital and eventually acquired immigrant status. While staying there, she met and married Bert, another Filipino immigrant without telling Danny about it.

Seven years later Danny was also assigned by his employer to oversee the purchase of a steel mill component and various equipment from a US steel manufacturing company located in Pittsburgh. And so Roxanne drove cross country to meet Danny and they eventually began to maintain a common-law relationship of husband and wife during which they begot a daughter, Claire. When Claire was about one year old, Danny and Roxanne came back to the Philippines for a brief vacation and finally got married here. And upon their return to the US, they begot their second child, Stephen.

From then on, the relationship of the couple started to deteriorate. Aside from money matters, Roxanne had some extra marital affairs. One time her daughter Claire even saw her hugging and kissing a “bad” man who worked for her father and lived in their house. Danny also complained that Roxanne was a spendthrift buying expensive jewelry and antique furniture instead of attending to household expenses. On the other hand Roxanne complained that Danny was always nagging her about money. And so after three years of marriage, they decided to separate.

Roxanne left Danny and the children and went back to California despite Danny’s plea of giving their marriage a second chance. Danny thus brought his children back to the Philippines but because his assignment in the US steel company was not yet completed, he had to leave the children with his sister, Marta and her family.

Roxanne then decided to return to the Philippines to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Danny and her sister Marta to gain custody over their children, Claire and Stephen were then 6 and 4 years old respectively. She claimed that since they were still below seven years old, she is entitled to have custody over them under Article 213 of the Family Code as they still need the loving, tender care that only a mother can give. In fact she allegedly spent a lot of money on long distance calls to keep in constant touch with them.

But after trial the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed her petition. The RTC found that Roxanne really had a previous marriage in California when she got married again to Danny. It also found that Roxanne was carrying on a love affair with one of Danny’s fellow employees who was living with them in the US. Furthermore, the RTC ruled that Roxanne is incapable of providing the children with necessities commensurate to their social standing because she does not even own a home in the Philippines. In fact, the court observed that the children even ignored her when they met during the hearing of the case where Claire already expressed her preference to stay with their father being over 7 years old at that time. A child psychologist and a social worker who examined Claire likewise testified that she was in constant fear that she may have to leave school and her aunt’s family to go back to the U.S. with her mother. So the RTC suspended Roxanne’s parental authority over their children and declared Danny to have sole parental authority over them but with rights of visitation by Roxanne to be agreed upon by them and approved by the court.

The RTC ruling was however reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA) which gave custody of the children to Roxanne and visitation rights to Danny on weekends. The CA mainly relied on Article 213 of the FC providing that a child below 7 years old should be under the custody of the mother. Was the CA correct?

No said the Supreme Court. While the law strongly presumes that the mother is the best custodian of children below 7 years, such presumption is not conclusive. In all questions on the care, custody, education and property of the children, the latter’s welfare shall be paramount. So for compelling reasons even a child below 7 years old may be ordered separated from the mother.

In this case, there are indeed compelling reasons why custody of the children Claire and Stephen should be given to Danny rather than to Roxanne. The testimonies of a child psychologist and the Social Welfare officer revealed that Claire who was then 5 years old was in constant fear of going back to the US to be with her mother Roxanne. Claire even revealed to them the incident when she saw her mother hugging and kissing a “bad” man who was a co-employee of Danny living with them in Pittsburg. Roxanne does not also deny that she was already legally married to Bert when she married Danny. In fact she was already convicted by another RTC judge of bigamy upon complaint of Danny. The illicit and immoral activities of Roxanne had already caused emotional disturbances, personality conflicts and exposure to conflicting moral values at least in Claire.

Danny can also very well perform the role of a sole parent and substitute mother. His assignment abroad is only temporary. In fact he already informed the court of the date of completion of his assignment and permanent return to the Philippines. The law is more than satisfied by the judgment of the RTC. In fact the children are now both over 7 years old and their choice of their parent Danny, with whom they prefer, is clear from the record of this case (Espiritu and Layug vs. Court of Appeals and Masauding, G.R. 115640, March 15, 1995)

* * *

Email: [email protected]