Santos v. CA G.R. No. 113054
Santos v. CA G.R. No. 113054
CA
1 of 4
Santos v. CA
2 of 4
Petitioner adds that the reasons relied upon by the private respondents in having custody over the boy, are flimsy
and insufficient to deprive him of his natural and legal right to have custody.
On the other hand, private respondents aver that they can provide an air-conditioned room for the boy and that
petitioner would not be in a position to take care of his son since he has to be assigned to different places. They
also allege that the petitioner did not give a single centavo for the boy's support and maintenance. When the boy
was about to be released from the hospital, they were the ones who paid the fees because their daughter and
petitioner had no money. Besides, Julia Bedia Santos, their daughter, had entrusted the boy to them before she left
for the United States. Furthermore, petitioner's use of trickery and deceit in abducting the child in 1990, after being
hospitably treated by private respondents, does not speak well of his fitness and suitability as a parent.
The Bedias argue that although the law recognizes the right of a parent to his child's custody, ultimately the
primary consideration is what is best for the happiness and welfare of the latter. As maternal grandparents who
have amply demonstrated their love and affection for the boy since his infancy, they claim to be in the best position
to promote the child's welfare.
The issue to be resolved here boils down to who should properly be awarded custody of the minor Leouel Santos,
Jr.
The right of custody accorded to parents springs from the exercise of parental authority. 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. 7 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. 8 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." 9
Parental authority and responsibility are inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced except in cases
authorized by law. 10 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. 11 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.
12 Even if a definite renunciation is manifest, the law still disallows the same. 13
The father and mother, being the natural guardians of unemancipated children, are duty-bound and entitled to keep
them
in
their
custody
and
14
company.
The child's welfare is always the paramount consideration in all questions concerning his care and
15
custody.
The law vests on the father and mother joint parental authority over the persons of their common children. 16 In
case of absence or death of either parent, the parent present shall continue exercising parental authority. 17 Only in
case of the parents' death, absence or unsuitability may substitute parental authority be exercised by the surviving
grandparent. 18 The situation obtaining in the case at bench is one where the mother of the minor Santos, Jr., is
working in the United States while the father, petitioner Santos, Sr., is present. Not only are they physically apart
but are also emotionally separated. There has been no decree of legal separation and petitioner's attempt to obtain
an annulment of the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity of his wife has failed. 19
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.
The Court of Appeals held that although there is no evidence to show that petitioner (Santos Sr.) is "depraved, a
habitual drunkard or poor, he may nevertheless be considered, as he is in fact so considered, to be unsuitable to be
Santos v. CA
3 of 4
Santos v. CA
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, Melo, Vitug and Francisco, JJ., concur.
4 of 4