Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

LACSON v SAN JOSE

FACTS

Alfonso Lacson Carmen San-Jose Lacson on Feb 14, 1953 with 4 children.

On Jan 9, 1963 Carmen left the conjugal home and began living in Manila. She filed a complaint on
March 12, 1963, in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for custody of the kids and their support.

An amicable settlement was however reached between the spouses with regard to custody of the kids
(wherein the 2 older kids go to their dad and the 2 younger ones to their mom), support and separation
of property. This was later approved by the CFI, stating that it was conformable to law.

Later, Carmen filed a complaint praying for the custody of all the kids. This was granted by the CA who
declared the agreement null and void insofar as the custody of the kids was concerned.

ISSUE:
WON the compromise agreement and the judgment of the CFI grounded on the said agreement are
conformable to law. - YES

HELD:
It is valid with respect to the separation of property between the spouses and the dissolution of the CP
since this is allowed by law provided judicial sanction is secured beforehand. Such approval was
obtained and it does not appear that they have creditors who will be prejudiced by the arrangements.

Further, the spouses have been separated in fact for at least 5 years and it is but proper to sever their
financial and proprietary interests. Court cannot force them to live with each other and render conjugal
rights to the other (Arroyo v Vasquez de Arroyo).

However, in the approval of the regime and dissolution, the court doesnt accord recognition nor
legalize de facto separation. Its abnormal and fraught with grave danger to all concerned (Arroyo v.
Vasquez de Arroyo). Spouses are obliged to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity and
render mutual help and support (CC, Art 109). Theres virtue in making it as difficult as possible for
married couples to abandon each other merely due to whims and caprices. General happiness of
married life is secured by its indissolubility. When people understand that they must live together, they
become good spouses from necessity of remaining such. Necessity is a powerful master in teaching
duties which it imposes. (Arroyo v Vasquez de Arroyo).

With regard to the custody and support of the children: all the children, including the Enrique and
Teresa, were below 7 year old then Art 363 CC specifically commands that no mother shall be
separated from her child under 7 year old unless court finds compelling reasons for such
measure.

Ratio for Art 363: Avoid tragedy where mom has seen her baby torn away from her. Compelling reasons
must be rare if moms heart is not to be unduly hurt. If mom has erred such as in adultery,
imprisonment and divorce will be sufficient punishment. Her moral dereliction will not
affect the baby who has yet to understand situation.

Provision is mandatory and the compromise judgment by separating 2 elder children who were below 7
year old from their mom was null and void for violating the provision. No compelling reason was given
for taking away 2 children from Carmen. CFI decision on MFR regarding compromise judgment only
presented a mere hint. Courts cannot proceed on mere insinuations.

Enrique and Maria are now above 7 yo, thus issue regarding awarding their custody to their mom has
become moot and academic. But, Court should still uphold their agreement regarding custody. Art 356
CC provides that every child is entitled to:
parental care
receive at least elementary education
moral and civic training by parents/guardians

right to live in atmosphere conducive to his physical, moral and intellectual development

Childs welfare should not be subject to parents say-so or mutual agreement alone. Court should
ascertain in whose custody the child can better be assured the rights granted by law.
Evidence should be presented and court should not merely rely on compromise judgment in
determining fitness of each parent to be custodian of children. Besides, Enrique (11), since hes now
over 10, should be given the choice of the parent he wishes to live with.

If any child will be finally awarded to mom, P150 monthly support is insufficient considering that prices
of commodities and services have increased and kids are now of school age. CFI may increase such
amount according to need of each child.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen