Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
GR No. 113054, March 16 1995
FACTS:
Petitioner Leouel Santos, SR., an army lieutenant, and Julia Bedia a nurse by profession, were married.
Their union beget only one child, Leouel Santos, JR.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
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 (sps. Bedia) where Sr. and wife Julia agreed to place Leouel Jr. In temporary custody.
The Bedias alleged that they paid for all the hospital bills, as well as the subsequent support of the boy because Sr. could not afford to do so.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
The boy's mother, Julia Bedia-Santos, left for the United States to work.
Sr. alleged that he is not aware of her whereabouts and his efforts to locate her in the United States proved futile. Private respondents claim that although abroad, their daughter Julia had been sending financial support to them for her son.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
Sr. along with his two brothers, visited the Bedia household, where three-year old Leouel Jr. was staying.
Bedias contend that through deceit and false pretensions, petitioner abducted the boy and clandestinely spirited him away to his hometown.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
The spouses Bedia then filed a petition for Care, Custody and Control of Minor Ward Leouel Santos Jr. wherein the trial court issued an order awarding custody of the child Leouel Santos, Jr. to his grandparents.
Petitioner appealed this Order to the Court of Appeals where respondent appellate court affirmed the trial court's order and denied his motion for reconsideration.
Read: People vs. Copro
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners should properly be awarded custody of the minor Leouel Santos, Jr.
HELD:
Yes.
Custody over the minor Leouel Santos Jr. is awarded to his legitimate father, herein petitioner Leouel Santos, Sr. The decisions of the respondent Court of Appeals were reversed and set aside.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
The right of custody accorded to parents springs from the exercise of parental authority.
Read: Cabanas vs. Pilapil
PARENTAL AUTHORITY OR PATRIA POTESTAS in Roman Law is the juridical institution whereby parents rightfully assume control and protection of their unemancipated children to the extent required by the latter' s needs.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
It is a mass of rights and obligations which the law grants to parents for the purpose of the children's physical preservation and development, as well as the cultivation of their intellect and the education of their heart and senses.
As regards parental authority, "there is no power, but a task; no complex of rights, but a sum of duties; no sovereignty but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor."
Parental authority and responsibility are inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced except in cases authorized by law.
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.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
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.
Even if a definite renunciation is manifest, the law still disallows the same.
The child's welfare is always the paramount consideration in all questions concerning his care and custody.
The law vests on the father and mother joint parental authority over the persons of their common children.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
In case of absence or death of either parent, the parent present shall continue exercising parental authority.
Only in case of the parents' death, absence or unsuitability may substitute parental authority be exercised by the surviving grandparent (Article 214, Family Code).
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.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
The fact that he was unable to provide financial support for his minor son from birth up to over three years when he took the boy from his in-laws without permission, should not be sufficient reason to strip him of his permanent right to the child's custody.
While petitioner's previous inattention is inexcusable and merits only the severest criticism, 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.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
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 and for the son to experience the warmth and support which a father can give.
His being a soldier is likewise no bar to allowing him custody over the boy.
So many men in uniform who are assigned to different parts of the country in the service of the nation, are still the natural guardians of their children.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
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 temporary separation from their families.
Petitioner's employment of trickery in spiriting away his boy from his in-laws, though unjustifiable, is likewise not a ground to wrest custody from him.
READ FULL TEXT
GR No. 113054, March 16 1995
FACTS:
Petitioner Leouel Santos, SR., an army lieutenant, and Julia Bedia a nurse by profession, were married.
Their union beget only one child, Leouel Santos, JR.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
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 (sps. Bedia) where Sr. and wife Julia agreed to place Leouel Jr. In temporary custody.
The Bedias alleged that they paid for all the hospital bills, as well as the subsequent support of the boy because Sr. could not afford to do so.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
The boy's mother, Julia Bedia-Santos, left for the United States to work.
Sr. alleged that he is not aware of her whereabouts and his efforts to locate her in the United States proved futile. Private respondents claim that although abroad, their daughter Julia had been sending financial support to them for her son.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
Sr. along with his two brothers, visited the Bedia household, where three-year old Leouel Jr. was staying.
Bedias contend that through deceit and false pretensions, petitioner abducted the boy and clandestinely spirited him away to his hometown.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
The spouses Bedia then filed a petition for Care, Custody and Control of Minor Ward Leouel Santos Jr. wherein the trial court issued an order awarding custody of the child Leouel Santos, Jr. to his grandparents.
Petitioner appealed this Order to the Court of Appeals where respondent appellate court affirmed the trial court's order and denied his motion for reconsideration.
Read: People vs. Copro
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners should properly be awarded custody of the minor Leouel Santos, Jr.
HELD:
Yes.
Custody over the minor Leouel Santos Jr. is awarded to his legitimate father, herein petitioner Leouel Santos, Sr. The decisions of the respondent Court of Appeals were reversed and set aside.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
The right of custody accorded to parents springs from the exercise of parental authority.
Read: Cabanas vs. Pilapil
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
It is a mass of rights and obligations which the law grants to parents for the purpose of the children's physical preservation and development, as well as the cultivation of their intellect and the education of their heart and senses.
As regards parental authority, "there is no power, but a task; no complex of rights, but a sum of duties; no sovereignty but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor."
Parental authority and responsibility are inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced except in cases authorized by law.
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.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
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.
Even if a definite renunciation is manifest, the law still disallows the same.
The child's welfare is always the paramount consideration in all questions concerning his care and custody.
The law vests on the father and mother joint parental authority over the persons of their common children.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
In case of absence or death of either parent, the parent present shall continue exercising parental authority.
Only in case of the parents' death, absence or unsuitability may substitute parental authority be exercised by the surviving grandparent (Article 214, Family Code).
Art. 214. In case of death, absence or unsuitability of the parents, substitute parental authority shall be exercised by the surviving grandparent. In case several survive, the one designated by the court, taking into account the same consideration mentioned in the preceding article, shall exercise the authority.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.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
The fact that he was unable to provide financial support for his minor son from birth up to over three years when he took the boy from his in-laws without permission, should not be sufficient reason to strip him of his permanent right to the child's custody.
While petitioner's previous inattention is inexcusable and merits only the severest criticism, 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.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
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 and for the son to experience the warmth and support which a father can give.
His being a soldier is likewise no bar to allowing him custody over the boy.
So many men in uniform who are assigned to different parts of the country in the service of the nation, are still the natural guardians of their children.
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
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 temporary separation from their families.
Petitioner's employment of trickery in spiriting away his boy from his in-laws, though unjustifiable, is likewise not a ground to wrest custody from him.
READ FULL TEXT