242,MARCH16,1995
407
G.R.No.113054.March16,1995.
408
408
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
PETITIONforreviewofadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Elam Law Officesforpetitioner.
Manuel S. Gemarinoforprivaterespondents.
ROMERO,J.:
In this petition for review, we are
asked to overturn the
1
decision of the Court of Appeals granting custody of six
yearold
_______________
1 CAGR CV No. 30563, In the matter of petition for care, custody
and control of minor Leouel Santos, Jr., spouses Leopoldo and Ofelia
Bedia, petitionersappellees, v. Leouel Santos, Sr., respondent
appellant,Rollo,p.21.
409
VOL.242,MARCH16,1995
409
controloftheboy.
Happily, unlike King Solomon, we need not merely rely
onawiseandunderstandingheart,forthereismanslaw
toguideusandthatis,theFamilyCode.
Theantecedentfactsgivingrisetothecaseatbenchare
asfollows:
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.whowasbornJuly18,1987.
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,LeopoldoandOfeliaBedia.
Petitioner and wife Julia agreed to place Leouel, Jr. in
the temporary custody of the latters parents, the
respondentspousesBedia.Thelatterallegedthattheypaid
forallthehospitalbills,aswellasthesubsequentsupportof
theboybecausepetitionercouldnotaffordtodoso.
Theboysmother,JuliaBediaSantos,leftfortheUnited
StatesinMay1988towork.Petitionerallegedthatheisnot
awareofherwhereaboutsandhiseffortstolocateherinthe
UnitedStatesprovedfutile.Privaterespondentsclaimthat
although abroad, their daughter Julia had been sending
financialsupporttothemforherson.
On September 2, 1990, petitioner along with his two
brothers,visitedtheBediahousehold,wherethreeyearold
Leouel, Jr. was staying. Private respondents contend that
through deceit and false pretensions, petitioner abducted
the boy and clandestinely spirited him away to his
hometowninBacong,NegrosOriental.
The spouses Bedia then filed a Petition for Care,
Custody and Control of Minor Ward Leouel Santos, Jr.,
beforetheRegionalTrialCourtofIloiloCity,withSantos,
2
Sr.asrespondent.
_______________
2 Spec. Proc. No. 4588, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Branch 29,
JudgeRicardoP.Galvez,presiding.
410
410
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
AfteranexpartehearingonOctober8,1990,thetrialcourt
issued an order on the same day awarding custody of the
childLeouelSantos,Jr.tohisgrandparents,Leopoldoand
3
OfeliaBedia.
4
PetitionerappealedthisOrdertotheCourtofAppeals.
In its decision dated April 30, 1992, respondent
appellate
5
court affirmed the trial courts order.
His motion for
6
reconsiderationhavingbeendenied, petitionernowbrings
theinstantpetitionforreviewforareversaloftheappellate
courtsdecision.
The Court of Appeals erred, according to petitioner, in
awardingcustodyoftheboytohisgrandparentsandnotto
MendozaandJaimeM.Lantin,concurring;Rollo,p.21.
6ResolutiondatedNovember16,1993,Rollo,p.34.
411
VOL.242,MARCH16,1995
411
no sovereignty
but a sacred trust for the welfare of the
9
minor.
Parental authority and responsibility are inalienable
and may not be transferred
or renounced except in cases
10
authorized by law. The right attached to parental
authority,beingpurelypersonal,thelawallowsawaiverof
parental authority only in cases of adoption, guardianship
and surrender
to a childrens home or an orphan
11
institution. Whenaparententruststhecustodyofaminor
to another, such as a friend or godfather, even in a
document,whatisgivenismerelytemporarycustodyandit
12
does not constitute a renunciation of parental authority.
Even if a definite13renunciation is manifest, the law still
disallowsthesame.
_______________
7 Puig Pea, cited in I J. REYES AND R. PUNO, AN OUTLINE OF
THEPHILIPPINECIVILLAW,295(4thed.,1964).
8
14080R,August15,1955;Bacayov.Calum,(CA)O.G.8607.
13FamilyCode,Art.210,takenfromArt.313oftheCivilCode.
412
412
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
dead,absentorunsuitable.Petitionersunfitness,according
to him, has not been successfully shown by private
respondents.
The Court of Appeals held that although there is no
evidencetoshowthatpetitioner(Santos,Sr.)isdepraved,a
habitual
_______________
14FamilyCode,Art.209and211;Aldecoav.HongkongandShanghai
Bank,30Phil.228citedinA.Tolentino,supraatp.618.
15
Art. 8, Pres. Decree No. 603, Child and Youth Welfare Code;
banc,deniedLeouelSantos,Sr.s
petitionforreviewwherehesoughttohavehismarriagetoJuliaBedia
Santos annulled on the ground of psychological incapacity. Leouel
Santos v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario BediaSantos, G.R.
No.112019.
413
VOL.242,MARCH16,1995
413
414
414
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
petitionerisinnopositiontosupporttheboy.Thefactthat
hewasunabletoprovidefinancialsupportforhisminorson
frombirthuptooverthreeyearswhenhetooktheboyfrom
his inlaws without permission, should not be sufficient
reason to strip him of his permanent right to the childs
custody. While petitioners previous inattention is
inexcusableandmeritsonlytheseverestcriticism,itcannot
be construed as abandonment. His appeal of the
unfavorabledecisionagainsthimandhiseffortstokeephis
onlychildinhiscustodymayberegardedasseriousefforts
to rectify his past misdeeds. To award him custody would
help enhance the bond between parent and son. It would
also give the father a chance to prove his love for his son
andforthesontoexperiencethewarmthandsupportwhich
afathercangive.
His being a soldier is likewise no bar to allowing him
custody over the body. So many men in uniform who are
assigned to different parts of the country in the service of
thenation,arestillthenaturalguardiansoftheirchildren.
It is not just to deprive our soldiers of authority, care and
custody over their children merely because of the normal
consequences of their duties and assignments, such as
temporaryseparationfromtheirfamilies.
Petitionersemploymentoftrickeryinspiritingawayhis
boyfromhisinlaws,thoughunjustifiable,islikewisenota
groundtowrestcustodyfromhim.
Privaterespondentsattachmenttotheyoungboywhom
theyhaverearedforthepastthreeyearsisunderstandable.
Stillandall,thelawconsidersthenaturalloveofaparent
tooutweighthatofthegrandparents,suchthatonlywhen
the parent present is shown to be unfit or unsuitable may
the grandparents exercise substitute parental authority, a
factwhichhasnotbeenprovenhere.
The strong bonds of love and affection possessed by
privaterespondentsasgrandparentsshouldnotbeseenas
incompatiblewithpetitionersrighttocustodyoverthechild
asafather.Moreover,whoistosaywhetherthepetitioners
financialstandingmayimproveinthefuture?
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.Thedecision
oftherespondentCourtofAppealsdatedApril30,1992as
wellasitsResolutiondatedNovember13,1992arehereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Custody over the minor
LeouelSantosJr.isawardedtohislegitimatefather,herein
petitionerLeouelSantos,
415
VOL.242,MARCH16,1995
415