PERSONS_AND_FAMILY_RELATIONS_LAW_First_S

Persons and Family Relations Law

Yes. The task of choosing the parent to whom custody shall be awarded is not
a ministerial function to be determined by a simple determination of the age of a
minor child. Whether a child is under or over seven years of age, the paramount
criterion must always be the child's interests. In ascertaining the welfare and best
interests of the child, courts are mandated by the Family Code to take into
account all relevant considerations. If a child is under seven years of age, the law
presumes that the mother is the best custodian. The presumption is strong but it is
not conclusive. It can be overcome by "compelling reasons". If a child is over seven,
his choice is paramount but, again, the court is not bound by that choice. In its
discretion, the court may Bnd the chosen parent unBt and award custody to the other
parent, or even to a third party as it deems Bt under the circumstances.

Then too, it must be noted that both Rosalind and Reginald are now over 7
years of age. They understand the diDerence between right and wrong, ethical
behavior and deviant immorality. Their best interests would be better served in an
environment characterized by emotional stability and a certain degree of material
su>ciency. There is nothing in the records to show that Reynaldo is an "unBt" person
under Article 213 of the Family Code. Not only are the children over seven years old
and their clear choice is the father, but the illicit or immoral activities of the mother
had already caused emotional disturbances, personality conMicts, and exposure to
conMicting moral values, at least in Rosalind.

CRESENCIO LIBI * and AMELIA YAP LIBI v. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, FELIPE GOTIONG and SHIRLEY GOTIONG

G.R. No. 70890, September 18, 1992, REGALADO, J.

Parents are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising
from criminal o enses committed by their minor children under their legal authority
or control, or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted with
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages.

Facts:

Due to an incident that led to the death of Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi,
a case for damages was Bled by Spouses Felipe and Shirley Gotiong, parents of Julie
Ann, against Spouses Cresencio Libi and Amelia Yap Libi, parents of Wendell. Prior to
the incident, Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were sweethearts however eventually
their relationship went sour. Attempt of Wendell for reconciliation likewise failed
which led to threats against Julie Ann. Both Julie Ann and Wendell died due to
gunshots. The gun recovered in the crime scene was licensed under the name of
Cresencio Libi, the father of Wendell.

Spouses Gotiong contends that it was Wendell who shot their daughter and thereafter
committed suicide. As such, Spouses Gotiong wanted to claim damages against
Spouses Libi arising from the latter’s vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code. The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. On appeal, the IAC reversed
the RTC decision. Hence this appeal.

Issue:

150 | P a g e

Persons and Family Relations Law

Whether or not Spouses Libi are liable for vicarious laiability.

Ruling:

Yes. Parents are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising
from criminal oDenses committed by their minor children under their legal authority
or control, or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted with
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages. That primary
liability is premised on the provisions of Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code with
respect to damages ex delicto caused by their children 9 years of age or under, or
over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted without discernment; and, with regard to
their children over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted with discernment, or 15
years or over but under 21 years of age, such primary liability shall be imposed
pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

In the case at bar, whether the death of the hapless Julie Ann Gotiong was
caused by a felony or a quasi-delict committed by Wendell Libi, respondent court did
not err in holding petitioners liable for damages arising therefrom. Spouses Libi failed
to duly exercise the requisite diligentissimi patris familias to prevent such damages.

LEOUEL SANTOS, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, and SPOUSES LEOPOLDO and
OFELIA BEDIA

G.R. No. 113054, March 16, 1995, ROMERO, J.

Only in case of the parents' death, absence or unsuitability may substitute
parental authority be exercised by the surviving grandparent.

Facts:

Leouel Santos, Jr. is the only child of spouses Leouel Santos, Sr., and Julia
Bedia. After his birth, he had been under the care and custody of Spouses Leopoldo
and Ofelia Bedia, his maternal grandparents. Since then, spouses Bedia are the ones
providing for the support for the child. Before Julia went abroad to work, she
entrusted the custody of her son to her parents. Later, Spouses Bedia alleged that
Santos, Sr abducted the child which prompted the former to Ble a "Petition for Care,
Custody and Control of Minor Ward Leouel Santos Jr.," before the RTC of Iloilo City,

After an ex-parte hearing, the RTC granted the petition and awarded the
custody of the child to spouses Bedia. On appeal, the CA a>rmed such decision. The
motion for reconsideration Bled by Leouel Santos, Sr was likewise denied. Before the
SC, Leouel Sr. contended that since Spouses Bedia failed to show that he is unBt and
unsuitable father, the grant of substitute parental authority to them is inappropriate.

Issue:

Whether or not custody of the child should be given to Spouses Bedia.

Ruling:

151 | P a g e

Persons and Family Relations Law

No. The father and mother, being the natural guardians of unemancipated
children, are duty-bound and entitled to keep them in their custody and company.
The law vests on the father and mother joint parental authority over the persons of
their common children. 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.

The consideration where the decision of CA is couched upon is insu>cient to
defeat petitioner's parental authority and the concomitant right to have custody over
the minor Leouel Santos, Jr., particularly since he has not been shown to be an
unsuitable and unBt parent.

ST. MARYS ACADEMY v. WILLIAM CARPITANOS et al.
G.R. No. 143363, February 6, 2002, PARDO, J.

To be liable, there must be a $nding that the act or omission considered as
negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence must
have a causal connection to the accident.

Facts

During an enrollment drive conducted by St. Mary’s Academy of Dipolog City,
the vehicle used by its student turned turtle and caused the death of Sherwin
Carpitanos. Records showed that the vehicle used was then driven recklessly by
James Daniel II, a minor. Later, Spouses William and Lucia Carpitanos, parents of
Sherwin Carpitanos, Bled a case against James Daniel II and his parents, James Daniel
Sr. and Guada Daniel, the vehicle owner, Vivencio Villanueva and St. Marys Academy
before the RTC of Dipolog City.

The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Capistrano. St. Marys Academy was ordered
to pay damages and in case of its insolvency, James Daniel, Sr. and Guada Daniel,
parents of James Daniel II, shall be subsidiary liable. On appeal, the CA a>rmed the
RTC decision but reduced the amount of actual damages. Motion for reconsideration
to this decision was likewise denied. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not St. Mary’s Academy is liable for damages for the death of
Sherwin Carpitanos.

Ruling:

No. For petitioner to be liable, there must be a Bnding that the act or omission
considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the
negligence must have a causal connection to the accident. In this case, the
respondents failed to show that the negligence of petitioner was the proximate cause
of the death of the victim. SigniBcantly, respondents did not present any evidence to
show that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the school
authorities, or the reckless driving of James Daniel II. Hence, the respondents reliance
on Article 219 of the Family Code that those given the authority and responsibility

152 | P a g e

Persons and Family Relations Law

under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages
caused by acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor was unfounded.

Hence, liability for the accident, whether caused by the negligence of the minor
driver or mechanical detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep, must be
pinned on the minor’s parents primarily. The negligence of petitioner St. Marys
Academy was only a remote cause of the accident.

Considering that the negligence of the minor driver or the detachment of the
steering wheel guide of the jeep owned by respondent Villanueva was an event over
which St. Marys Academy had no control, and which was the proximate cause of the
accident, petitioner may not be held liable for the death resulting from such accident.

BONIFACIA P. VANCIL v. HELEN G. BELMES
G.R. No. 13222, June 19, 2001, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Helen Belmes, being the natural mother of the minor, has the preferential
right over that of petitioner to be Vincent’s guardian.

Facts:

Reeder C. Vancil and Helen G. Belmes are common law husband and wife and
they had two children out of such relationship namely Valerie and Vincent. Due to the
death of Reeder, a US-based Navy serviceman, Bonifacia Vancil, the mother of
Reeder, Bled a guardianship proceeding over the persons and properties of minors
Valerie and Vincent before the RTC of Cebu City.

Later, the RTC appointed Bonifacia as the legal and judicial guardian of the
persons and estate of Valerie Vancil and Vincent Vancil Jr. Subsequently, Helen
Belmes Bled an opposition to such proceeding contending that she initiated a similar
proceeding. Belmes also Bled a motion for the Removal of Guardian and Appointment
of a New One, asserting that she is the natural mother in actual custody of and
exercising parental authority over the subject minors

The RTC denied the motion of Belmes and directed Bonifacia to perform her
duties. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and ruled that
under the law, parents are ipso facto the guardian ad litem of their minor child.
During the pendency of the petition, Valerie attained the age of majority thus making
the guardianship proceeding, in so far as she is concern, moot and academic.

Issue:

Whether or not Helen Belmes should be the guardian of Vincent Vancil.

Ruling:

153 | P a g e

Persons and Family Relations Law

Yes. Helen Belmes, being the natural mother of the minor, has the preferential
right over that of petitioner to be Vincent’s guardian. This ruling Bnds support in
Article 211 of the Family Code. Petitioner, as the surviving grandparent, can exercise
substitute parental authority only in case of death, absence or unsuitability of
respondent. Considering that respondent is very much alive and has exercised
continuously parental authority over Vincent, petitioner has to prove, in asserting her
right to be the minor’s guardian, respondent’s unsuitability. Petitioner, however, has
not proDered convincing evidence showing that respondent is not suited to be the
guardian of Vincent. Petitioner merely insists that respondent is morally unBt as
guardian of Valerie considering that her (respondent’s) live-in partner raped Valerie
several times. But Valerie, being now of major age, is no longer a subject of this
guardianship proceeding.

Even assuming that respondent is unBt as guardian of minor Vincent, still
petitioner cannot qualify as a substitute guardian. It bears stressing that she is an
American citizen and a resident of Colorado. Obviously, she will not be able to
perform the responsibilities and obligations required of a guardian. Courts should not
appoint persons as guardians who are not within the jurisdiction of our courts for they
will Bnd it di>cult to protect the wards.

154 | P a g e