Natural right

This is another case of battle for custody of a minor child. Coming into play here is the nature of parental authority or the “mass of rights and obligations which the law grants to parents for the purpose of the children’s physical development, as well as the cultivation of their intellect and the education of their hearts and senses.” The issue in this case is whether said authority can be transferred or renounced, and when it can be waived under the law. This is the case between Emma, a widow with 12 children, and Cita, her daughter-in-law.

Cita got married to Rolly, one of Emma’s sons. After their marriage they decided to stay with Emma who had enough financial means to support them and the children they may beget, because she maintains a profitable store, rents out rooms in her house and receives substantial pension for the death of her husband.

During their marriage, Cita and Rolly begot their two daughters Mely and Mila. The couple entrusted the custody of Mely to Cita’s mother in the province while Mila stayed with them at Emma’s house in Manila.

After six years of marriage however, Rolly died. At the time of his death, Mely was only four years old while Mila was three. Cita thus decided to go back to the province to her mother along with her younger daughter Mila. Emma, however, prevailed upon Cita to entrust custody of Mila to her, reasoning out that her son Rolly just died and to assuage her grief, she needed the company of the child to at least compensate for the loss of her son. So Cita left Mila with Emma and returned to her mother’s house in the province where she stayed with Mely.

Subsequently, Cita met Dr. Wally Osuma, a Japanese-American orthodontist practicing in America through her Auntie who introduced her to him. Their acquaintance blossomed into a meaningful relationship until they decided to get married just two years after the death of Rolly. Then about ten months thereafter, Cita migrated to the USA to join her new husband. She became a trainee in a bank while Dr. Wally continued to progress in his profession, maintaining a clinic and earning $5,000 a month and owning three cars.

Later, Cita returned to the Philippines to be reunited with her children and bring them to the US. She informed Emma about her desire to take custody of Mila because her present husband was willing to adopt both Mely and Mila and provide for their education and support. Emma, however, refused, contending that Cita already abandoned and entrusted custody of Mila to her.

Because of Emma’s refusal, Cita filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the recovery of Mila’s custody. After trial, the lower court granted her petition and ordered Emma or anyone acting in her behalf to immediately transfer custody of Mila to Cita, her natural mother. This ruling was affirmed in its entirety by the Court of Appeals.

So Emma went to the Supreme Court, seeking the reversal of the CA decision. She contended that Cita had already abandoned Mila to her care and custody and she is fit and deserving to take care of the child, having managed to raise 12 children of her own, on her own and has the financial means to take care of and carry out her plans for Mila.

But the SC decided in favor of Cita. The SC ruled that being the natural mother of Mila, Cita is the natural guardian duty bound and entitled to keep custody and company of her child. When she entrusted custody of Mila to Emma, what is given is merely temporary custody and it does not constitute a waiver or renunciation of parental authority. The right attached to parental authority is purely personal, so the law allows a waiver only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a children’s home or an orphanage, which does not appear in this case. Here Cita only gave Emma temporary custody of her minor child Mila and it did not constitute abandonment or renunciation of parental authority. Parental authority is not a power but a task; it is not a complex of rights but a sum of duties; it is not a sovereignty, but a sacred trust for the welfare of the child.

The right of parents to the custody of their minor children is one of the natural rights of parenthood, a right supported by law and sound public policy. The right is an inherent one, which is not created by the estate or decisions of the courts, but arises from the nature of the parent-child relationship (Sagala-Eslao vs. Court of Appeals and Cordero-Ouye. G.R. 116773, Jan. 16, 1997).