Eslao v.

CA
Facts: Maria Paz and Reynaldo Eslao were married on June 22, 1984 and after the marriage, they stayed with
petitioner Teresita,the mother of the husband. Two children were born. Leslie was entrusted to the care and
custody of Maria's mom while Angelica stayed with her parents at Teresita's house. OnAugust 6, 1990, Reynaldo
died. Petitioner wanted to bring Angelica with her to Pampanga but Teresita insisted on keeping the child with her
in the meantime to assuage her grief due to her son's death.Maria later met James Manabu-Ouye, a Japanese
American who is an orthodontist and they decided to get married later returned to the Philippines to be reunited
withher kids and then bring them with her as hernew husband is willing to adopt her kids.Teresita, however,
refused to give her Angelicabecause she claims that Maria has already abandoned her.The lower court granted the
custody of the minor Angelica to the mother, Maria Paz. CA affirmed this decision.
Issue: WON custody of Angelica should begranted to Maria Paz
Held: Yes, The child's welfare is always the paramount consideration in all questions concerning his care and
custody. The mom is married to an Orthodontist who has a lucrative practice of his profession. In her
grandmother's house, the rooms are rented to other persons. When the mom entrusted the custody of her minor
child to the grandmother, what she gave to the latter was merely temporary custody and it did not constitute
abandonment or renunciation of parental authority. For the right attached to parental authority, being purely
personal, the law allows a waiver of parental authority only in cases of adoption,guardianship and surrender to a
children's home or an orphan institution which do not appear here.

Espiritu v. Layug
Facts: Reynaldo Espiritu and Teresita Masauding met in 1976 in Iligan City where Reynaldo was employed by the
National SteelCorporation and Teresita was a nurse. In 1977,Teresita left to CA for work as a nurse and in 1984,
Reynaldo was sent to Pittsburgh as its liaison officer.They maintained a common law relationship and they begot
two kids, Rosalind (1986)andReginald (1988). Reynaldo and Teresita got married in 1987. They decided to separate
in1990. Teresita left Reynaldo and the children and went back to CA. Reynaldo brought the kids back in to the
Philippines but then he had to leave his kids with his sister because his assignment in the US was not yet
completed.Teresita returned to the Philippines and onDec. 8, 1992 filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
against the petitioners to gain custody over the children. The TC dismissed thepetition and suspended Teresita's
parentalauthority over the kids and declared Reynaldo to have sole parental authority over them but with rights of
visitation to be agreed upon by the parties and to be approved by the Court.The CA reversed this decision and gave
custody to Teresita and visitation rights on weekends to Reynaldo.
Issue: WON Teresita is more suitable and better qualified in helping the children to grow into responsible, well -
adjusted and happy young adults.
Held: No, If a child is under seven years of age,the law presumes that the mother is the best custodian. The
presumption is strong but it is not conclusive: It can be overcome by"compelling reasons". If a child is over
seven,his choice is paramount but, again, the court is not bound by that choice. In its discretion, the court may find
the chosen parent unfit and award custody to the other parent, or even to a third party as it deems fit under the
circumstances.

David v. CA
FACTS:
1.Petitioner Daisie T. David worked as secretary of private respondent Ramon R. Villar, a rich businessman.
2. Private respondent is a married man and a father.
3. However, despite this, Daisie and Ramon cohabited
4. Out of this union, Christopher J., was born (onMarch 9, 1985).
5. Christopher J. was followed by two morechildren, both girls, namely Christine, born onJune 9, 1986, and Cathy
Mae on April 24,1988.
6. The relationship became known to private respondent's wife when Daisie took Christopher J, to Villar's house at
Villa Teresain Angeles City sometime in 1986 and introduced him to Villar's legal wife.
7. the children of Daisie were freely brought by Villar to his house as they were eventually accepted by his legal
family.
8. In the summer of 1991, Villar asked Daisie to allow Christopher J., then six years of age, to go with his family to
Boracay.
9. Daisie agreed.
10. but after the trip, Villar refused to give back thechild.
11. Daisie filed a petition for habeas corpus.
ISSUE: Whether or not the child should be given back to Daisie.
HELD: Yes.
REASON 1: Christopher J. is an illegitimate child since at the time of his conception, his father, private respondent
Ramon R. Villar, was married to another woman other than the child's mother. As such, pursuant to Art. 176 of the
Family Code, Christopher J. is under the parentalauthority of his mother, the herein petitioner,who, as a
consequence of such authority, is entitled to have custody of him.The fact that private respondent has recognized
the minor child may be a ground for ordering him to give support to the latter, but not for giving him custody of
the child.
REASON 2:Under Art. 213 of the Family Code, "no childunder seven years of age shall be separatedfrom the
mother unless the court findscompelling reasons to order otherwise.

Tonog v. CA
FACTS:
1. September 23, 1989, petitioner Dinah B. Tonog gave birth to Gardin Faith Belarde Tonog, her illegitimate
daughter with private respondent Edgar V. Daguimol.
2. A year after the birth of Gardin Faith, petitionerleft for the United States of America to work asa registered
nurse
3. Gardin Faith was left in the care of her father(private respondent herein) and paternal grandparents.
4. On January 10, 1992, private respondent fileda petition for guardianship over Gardin Faithand it was approved
5. Petitioner opposed. on October 4, 1993, amotion to remand custody of Gardin Faith toher.
6. The trial court granted the motion and the case to determine custody of Gardin Faith is now pending.
7. The respondent filed a petition for review on certiorari asserting that temporary custody should be awarded to
him because the child has lived with him all her life and It wouldcertainly wreak havoc on the childs
psychological make-up to give her to the custody of private respondent, only to return her to petitioner should the
latter prevail in the main case. Subjecting the child to emotional seesaw should be avoided
ISSUE:W.N. temporary custody should be granted to the father.
HELD:Yes.In custody disputes, it is axiomatic that the paramount criterion is the welfare and well-being of the
child.Insofar as illegitimate children are concerned,Article 176 of the Family Code provides that illegitimate
children shall be under the parentalauthority of their mother. Likewise, Article 213of the Family Code provides that
*n+o child under seven years of age shall be separatedfrom the mother, unless the court finds compelling
reasons to order otherwise.

Briones v. Miguel
Facts:
1) Review of CA decision awarding custody of minor child to mother (custody til child reaches age 10 then he is to
choose w/c parent he wants to stay with) w/ visitation rights to the Father, Joey D. Briones.
2)Mar 5, 02 files for Habeas Corpus claiming the child was visited by s Maricel and Francisca Miguel relatives of
the mother of the child, Loreta Miguel, under the pretext of taking the child to SM, then they did not return.
3) claims that he extensively looked for the child but failed so he was compelled to file for habeas corpus.
4) mother Loreta alleges that the child was not taken as he was fetched by her w/ the consent.
5) and met in Japan and had a relationship together w/c bore the child Michael Kevin Pineda (relationship
eventually soured accdgto Loreta because of illicit relationship w/ another woman, now married to
Japanesenational)
6)petitions for joint custody when the mom Loreta is away.
Issues:WON the natural father of an illegitimatechild may be denied custody of his ownchild.
Held:Yes, the child being born outside of a legitimate marriage is considered illegitimatesince his illegitimacy is not
cured by his parents later marriage. As such he is covered by Art 176 of the family code that mentions among
other things that a mother shall haveparental authority over the illegitimate child,regardless of whether the
father acknowledges paternity over the child. Acknowledgment of paternity is only a means of compelling support
for the child not entitling custody. Moreover the Family Code does not distinguish b/w the natural and spurious
nature of the illegitimate child as they are treated in the same category.Furthermore absent any compelling reason
for
depriving Loreta custody over the child custody shall remain w/ the mother, with thefather granted visitation
rights.

Gualberto v. Gualberto
Facts:
Jocelyn Gualberto brought her 4 yearold child with her as she abandoned herhusband Crisanto in 2002. Crisanto
claims thatshe abandoned him because she was havinglesbian relations with one Noreen Gay.Nevertheless, the
trial court granted Jocelynwith the custody of the child since the child isbelow seven years old. She also stated
thatshe has no objection to the father visiting thechild even everyday provided that they live inMindoro. The CA
reversed the ruling andgranted Crisanto the custody of the child on theground that Jocelyn is unfit for the custody
ofthe child because of her immoral act of livingwith another woman.
Issue:WON Jocelyn deserves the have the custodyof the child
Held: Yes. The Court held that it is not enoughfor Crisanto to show merely that Joycelyn wasa lesbian. He must also
demonstrate that shecarried on her purported relationship with aperson of the same sex in the presence of
theirson or under circumstances not conducive to
the childs proper moral development.
This wasnot shown by Crisanto.

Vancil v. Belmes
Facts:
-Dec 12 1986 Reeder Vancil, a navyserviceman, died leaving behind his twochildren Valerie and Vincent by his
common-law wife Helen Belmes
-May 1987 Bonifacia Vancil, Reeders mom, executed guardianship proceedings for the twochildren which was
graned. Valerie was 6 andVincent was 2
-Aug 1987 Helen Belmes opposed theguardianship saying that since she is themother she should be the guardian
since thetwo children were both permanently residing with her while Bonifacia was an American naturalized
citizen who lived in Colorado. RTC rejected this.
-CA: reversed RTC decision and proclaimed Helen as the guardian. Bonifacia appealed thus the case
ISSUE: WON CA was correct in appointing Helen Belmes their mother as guardian
HELD: YES! Note, this case now only concerns Vincent since Valerie at this time was already18 years old.
-FC 211father and mother shall jointlyexercise parental authority. This is an inherent right derived from the
nature of the parental relationship
-FC 214 - in case of death, absence orunsuitaibility of the parents, parental authority may be exercised by the
surviving grandparents
Grandparents may only be appointed when there is need for a substitute parental authority.Mother is clearly not
dead and Bonifacia did not give any evidence that she was morally unfit to be the guardian of Vincent.

St. Mary's Academy v. Carpitanos
Facts:
-From Feb 13-20 1995,St. Marys conducted an enrollment drive, pat of which were schoolvisits from where
prospective enrollees werestudying
-As a student of St. Marys, Sherwin Carpitanos (son of respondent spouses) was part of thecampaign group
-Sherwin, along with other students were ridingthe jeep, owned by co-respondent VivencioVillanueva, driven by
James Daniel, 15 yo, alsoa student, allegedly, he was driving in recklessmanner resulting the jeep to turtle, and
Sherwindied as a result of injuries sustained
-After trial, RTC ordered St. Marys to pay thespouses Carpitanos for damages
-St. Marys appeals, CA denies, hence thisappeal
Issue: W/n CA erred in holding petitioner liable for damages for the death of Sherwin
Held / Ratio: Yes, CA decision reversed
-Under FC Art. 218, Schools have special parental authority (APA)over a minor child while under their custody such
authority applies to field trips and other affairs outside school whenever authorized by the schools
-Under FC Art. 219, if a person under custody isa minor, those exercising SPA are liable fordamages caused by acts
or omissions of theunemancipated minor while under their custody
-For St. Marys to be liable, there must be an act or omission considered negligent and which has proximate cause
to the injury, and the negligence must have causal connection to the accident
-Respondents fail to show that the negligence was the proximate cause, hence reliance onArt 219 is unfounded
-Respondents Spouses Daniel (parents ofdriver) and Villanueva (owner of the jeep) admitthat the cause of the
accident was not negligence of St. Marys nor the reckless driving of James but the detachment of the steering
wheel guide of the jeep which the Carpitons do not dispute
-There is likewise no evidence that St. Marys allowed the minor James to drive, it was Ched Villanueva, grandson
of the jeep owner whoallowed James to drive
-Hence liability for the accident whether causedby negligence of the driver or detachment of steering wheel guide
must be pinned on the minors parents. The negligence of St. Marys
was only a remote cause. With the evidence presented by St. Marys and with the fact that the Daniel spouses
mentionthe circumstance of detachment of steeringwheel, it is not the school but the registeredowner of the
vehicle who shall be responsible.