GUALBERTO v.

GUALBERTO
DOCTRINE: Art 213 of the Family Code. In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent
designated by the Court. The Court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over seven years of
age, unless the parent chosen is unfit.

FACTS:

Crisanto Rafaelito G. Gualberto V filed before the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Joycelyn w/ an
ancillary prayer for custody pendente lite of their almost 4-year-old son, Rafaello, whom her wife took away w/ her from their
conjugal home and his school when she left him.
The RTC granted the ancillary prayer for custody pendente lite, since the wife failed to appear despite notice.
o

A house helper of the spouses testified that the mother does not care for the child as she very often goes out of the house and even
saw her slapping the child.
Another witness testified that after surveillance he found out that the wife is having lesbian relations.

Court of Appeals - The judge issued the assailed order reversing her previous order, and this time awarded the custody of the
child to the mother.
o Finding that the reason stated by Crisanto not to be a compelling reason as provided in Art 213 of the Family Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the custody of the minor child should be awarded to the mother.
RULING: Article 213 of the Family Code provided: Art 213. In case of separation of parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the
parent designated by the court. The court shall take into account all relevant consideration, especially the choice of the child over seven years
of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit.
No child under seven yrs of age shall be separated from the mother unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.
This Court has held that when the parents separated, legally or otherwise, the foregoing provision governs the custody of their child. Article
213 takes its bearing from Article 363 of the Civil Code, w/c reads:
Art 363. In all question on the care, custody, education and property of children, the latter welfare shall be paramount. No mother
shall be separated from her child under seven years of age, unless the court finds compelling reason for such measure.

Order of the RTC only temporary custody

o Provisional & subject to change as circumstance may warrant
Art. 213 mandatory in character
No evidence that the son was exposed to the mothers alleged sexual proclivities (lesbian) or that his proper moral and psychological
development suffered as a result.

SANTOS SR. v. CA
DOCTRINE: Art. 214 of the Family Code: In case of death, absence or unsuitability of the parents, substitute parental authority shall be
exercised by the surviving grandparent.
FACTS:
Petitioner Leouel Santos, Sr., an army lieutenant, and Julia Bedia a nurse by profession, were married in Iloilo City in 1986. Their union begot
only one child, Leouel Santos, Jr. who was born July 18, 1987. From the time the boy was released from the hospital until sometime thereafter,
he had been in the care and custody of his maternal grandparents, private respondents herein, Leopoldo and Ofelia Bedia.
On September 2, 1990, petitioner along with his two brothers, visited the Bedia household, where three-year old Leouel Jr. was staying. Private
respondents contend that through deceit and false pretensions, petitioner abducted the boy and clandestinely spirited him away to
his hometown in Bacong, Negros Oriental.

The spouses Bedia then filed a "Petition for Care, Custody and Control of Minor Ward Leouel Santos Jr.," before the Regional
Trial Court of Iloilo City, with Santos, Sr. as respondent.

After an ex-parte hearing on October 8, 1990, the trial court issued an order on the same day awarding custody of the child Leouel
Santos, Jr. to his grandparents, Leopoldo and Ofelia Bedia.

Petitioner appealed this Order to the Court of Appeals. In its decision dated April 30, 1992, respondent appellate court affirmed the trial
court's order.

Petitioner assails the decisions of both the trial court and the appellate court to award custody of his minor son to his parents-in-law,
the Bedia spouses on the ground that under Art. 214 of the Family Code, substitute parental authority of the grandparents is proper
only when both parents are dead, absent or unsuitable.

Petitioner's unfitness, according to him, has not been successfully shown by private respondents.

ISSUE: Who should properly be awarded custody of the minor Leouel Santos, Jr.?
RULING: The minor should be given to the legitimate father.
When a parent entrusts the custody of a minor to another, such as a friend or godfather, even in a document, what is given is merely
temporary custody and it does not constitute a renunciation of parental authority. Only in case of the parents' death, absence or
unsuitability may substitute parental authority be exercised by the surviving grandparent.
The court held the contentions of the grandparents are insufficient as to remove petitioner's parental authority and the concomitant right to
have custody over the minor. Private respondents' demonstrated love and affection for the boy, notwithstanding, the legitimate father is still
preferred over the grandparents.

The latter's wealth is not a deciding factor, particularly because there is no proof that at the present time, petitioner is in no
position to support the boy. While petitioner's previous inattention is inexcusable, it cannot be construed as abandonment. His appeal

of the unfavorable decision against him and his efforts to keep his only child in his custody may be regarded as serious efforts to rectify
his past misdeeds. To award him custody would help enhance the bond between parent and son.

VANCIL v. BELMES
DOCTRINE: Art 211 of the Family Code. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their
common children. In case of disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary.
FACTS:
The RTC appointed Bonifacia Vancil, an American citizen, as legal and judicial guardian over the persons and estate of Valerie and Vincent,
the children of her deceased son Reeder.

Helen Belmes, the natural mother of the minor children, instituted a motion for removal of Guardianship and Appointment of Vancil,
asserting that she is the natural mother in custody of and exercising parental authority over the subject minors.
Trial court rejected Belmes' petition.
The CA reversed the RTC order.
Since Valerie had reached the age of majority at the time the case reached the SC, the Court resolves to determine whom between the
mother and grandmother of minor Vincent should be his guardian.

ISSUE: Whether or not Helen Belmes is the sole guardian of the minor Vincent.
RULING: Belmes, being the natural mother of Vincent, has the preferential right to be his guardian. Art. 211 of the FC states: "The father and
the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their common children. In case of disagreement, the fathers decision
shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary. xxx."
Vancil, as the surviving grandparent, can exercise substitute parental authority only in case of death, absence or unsuitability of
Belmes.
Considering Considering that Belmes is still alive and has exercised continuously parental authority over Vincent, Vancil has to prove Belmes'
unsuitability.
Assuming that Belmes is unfit as a guardian of Vincent, still Vancil cannot qualify as a substitute guardian. This is because she admitted in her
petition that an expatriate like her will find difficulty of discharging the duties of a guardian.
As the Court held in Guerrero vs Teran, the courts should not appoint persons as guardians who are not within the jurisdiction of
the courts as they will find it difficult to protect the wards.