Articles 211, 212, & 213 of the Family Code of the Philippines

-
ARTICLE 211. 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.

Children shall always observe respect and reverence towards their parents and are obliged to obey them as long as the children are under parental authority. (17a, P.D. No. 603)

The general rule is that in matters of the physical, moral and educational development of the child, the parental authority is joint.

However, the law recognizes preferential authority of the father in instances like:

Art. 225 of the Family Code

  • In case of conflict regarding the guardianship over a minor’s properties, the decision of the father shall prevail, except if there is a judicial order to the contrary.


Art. 14 of the Family Code

  • When the child gets married, but parental consent is needed, the father is preferred to that of the mother.

Under this article, there are two (2) basic duties of children toward their parents:
  1. To obey their parents as long as they are under parental authority; and
  2. To observe respect and reverence towards their parents.


ARTICLE 212. In case of absence or death of either parent, the parent present shall continue exercising parental authority. The remarriage of the surviving parent shall not affect the parental authority over the children, unless the court appoints another person to be the guardian of the person or property of the children. (17a, P.D. No. 603)


ARTICLE 213. 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. (n)

  • Insanity may be a compelling reason to separate a mother from the child.
  • Mere unfaithfulness to her husband, even prostitution, may not be a ground.
  • Child’s best interest can override procedural rules and even parental right to her custody. (Luna vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., GR No. L-68374, June 18, 1985)
  • Lesbianism per se is not a ground to separate a child from the mother. 
  • A child’s custody may not be a subject of an amicable settlement.
  • Common-law relationship of a child’s mother with a married man is a ground to separate the child.
In the case of Cervantes vs, Fajardo (G.R. No. 79955, Jan. 27, 1989), the Supreme Court held that in all cases involving the custody, care, education and property of children, the latter's welfare is paramount. The provision that no mother shall be separated from a child under five (5) years of age, will not apply where the Court finds compelling reasons to rule otherwise. In all controversies regarding the custody of minors, the foremost consideration is the moral, physical and social welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the resources and moral as well as social standing of the contending parents. 



»»————-　　————-««

Case Digest
G.R. No. 79955 January 27, 1989

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OF MINOR ANGELIE ANNE C. CERVANTES, NELSON L. CERVANTES and ZENAIDA CARREON CERVANTES, petitioners,
vs.

GINA CARREON FAJARDO and CONRADO FAJARDO, respondents.


PONENTE: Padilla, J.


FACTS:
  • The minor, Angelie, was born on 14 February 1987 to respondents Conrado Fajardo and Gina Carreon, who are common-law husband and wife. Respondents offered the child for adoption to Gina Carreon's sister and brother-in-law, the herein petitioners Zenaida Carreon-Cervantes and Nelson Cervantes, spouses, who took care and custody of the child when she was barely two (2) weeks old. An Affidavit of Consent to the adoption of the child by herein petitioners, was also executed by respondent Gina Carreon on 29 April 1987. 
  • The petition for adoption (Sp. Proc. No. 057-B) was filed by the petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Rizal, Branch 67 which, on 20 August 1987, rendered a decision  granting the petition. The child was then known as Angelie Anne Fajardo. 
  • The court ordered that the child be "freed from parental authority of her natural parents as well as from legal obligation and maintenance to them and that from now on shall be, for all legal intents and purposes, known as Angelie Anne Cervantes, a child of herein petitioners and capable of inheriting their estate."
  • Sometime in March or April 1987, the adoptive parents, herein petitioners Nelson and Zenaida Cervantes, received a letter from the respondents demanding to be paid the amount of P150,000.00, otherwise, they would get back their child. Petitioners refused to accede to the demand.
  • As a result, on 11 September 1987, while petitioners were out at work, respondent Gina Carreon took the child from her "yaya" at the petitioners' residence in Angono, Rizal, claiming that she was instructed to do so by her mother. Respondent Gina Carreon brought the child to her house in Parañaque. 
  • Petitioners demanded the return of the child, but Gina Carreon refused, saying that she had no desire to give up her child for adoption and that the affidavit of consent to the adoption she had executed was not fully explained to her. She sent word to the petitioners that she will, however, return the child to the petitioners if she were paid the amount of P150,000.00.
  • Felisa Tansingco, the social worker who had conducted the case study on the adoption and submitted a report thereon to the Regional Trial Court of Rizal in the adoption case, testified on 27 October 1987 before the Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court of Pasig in connection with the present petition. She declared that she had interviewed respondent Gina Carreon on 24 June 1987 in connection with the contemplated adoption of the child. During the interview, said respondent manifested to the social worker her desire to have the child adopted by the petitioners.


ISSUE:
  • Whether or not the adoptive parents, Nelson and Zenaida Cervantes, have custody over the child Angelie Ann.


HELD:
  • Yes. The Supreme Court held that in all cases involving the custody, care, education and property of children, the latter's welfare is paramount. The provision that no mother shall be separated from a child under five (5) years of age, will not apply where the Court finds compelling reasons to rule otherwise. In all controversies regarding the custody of minors, the foremost consideration is the moral, physical and social welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the resources and moral as well as social standing of the contending parents. 
  • The Supreme Court further states that the respondents' relationship is a common-law husband and wife relationship. Their open cohabitation will not accord the minor that desirable atmosphere where she can grow and develop into an upright and moral-minded person. On the other hand, petitioners who are legally married appear to be morally, physically, financially, and socially capable of supporting the minor and giving her a future better than what the natural mother (herein respondent Gina Carreon), who is not only jobless but also maintains an illicit relation with a married man, can most likely give her.
  • Additionally, the minor has been legally adopted by petitioners with the full knowledge and consent of respondents. A decree of adoption has the effect, among others, of dissolving the authority vested in natural parents over the adopted child, except where the adopting parent is the spouse of the natural parent of the adopted, in which case, parental authority over the adopted shall be exercised jointly by both spouses. The adopting parents have the right to the care and custody of the adopted child and exercise parental authority and responsibility over him.




References:

  • Albano, E. (2017).Family Code of the Philippines, pp. 38-39. Quezon City, Philippines: Central Books Supply, Inc.
  • Arellano Law Fovndation. (2019). The LAWPHiL Project. Philippine Jurisprudence. Retrived October 2019, from https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/jan1989/ gr_79955_1989.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Articles 38 and 39 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

-
Article 38. Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, prodigality and civil interdiction are mere restrictions on capacity to act, and do not exempt the incapacitated person from certain obligations, as when the latter arise from his acts or from property relations, such as easements. Such conditions merely restrict their capacity to act. They have juridical capacity and are susceptible of rights and even of obligations, when the same arise from their acts or from property relations. These persons are not exempted from their obligations. Their parents or guardians may still be liable. Article 39. The following circumstances, among others, modify or limit capacity to act: age, insanity, imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, penalty, prodigality, family relations, alienage, absence, insolvency and trusteeship. The consequences of these circumstances are governed in this Code, other codes, the Rules of Court, and in special laws. Capacity to act is not...
Read more

Article 172 of the Family Code of the Philippines

-
Proof of Filiation Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a, 267a) The Supreme Court in a case made the observation that: “Parentage, lineage and legitimacy cannot be made to depend upon parental authority or bodily marks of similarity. There is scarcely a family among any of the nationalities where there are a number of children, when one or more of them, due to heredity perhaps, do not resemble either of the immediate parents. Lineage cannot depend whol...
Read more