PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS (then) 5 (now seven) years old, will not apply

January 15, 2024, Session where the court finds compelling reasons to rule
otherwise. In all controversies regarding the
PARENTAL AUTHORITY custody of minors, the foremost consideration is
the moral, physical, and social welfare of the
ARTICLE 213. In case of separation of the child concerned – taking into account the
parents, parental authority shall be resources and moral as well as social standing of
exercised by the parent designated by the the contending parents. Never has the Supreme
Court. The Court shall take into account all Court deviated from this criterion.
relevant considerations, especially the
choice of the child over 7 years of age, Cervantes vs. Fajardo
unless the parent chosen is unfit. One compelling reason to separate the child from
the mother is when she has a common-law
No child under 7 years of age shall be relationship with another man.
separated from the mother, unless the court
finds compelling reasons to order Such a scenario will not afford the minor child
otherwise. that desirable atmosphere where she can grow
and develop into an upright and moral-minded
Comment: person.
Use of the Word “Separation”
It is unclear if what is referred to is “legal” Panlilio vs. Salonga
separation or “extra-legal” separation. The doctrine of judicial stability or non-
interference bars the Makati Court from
Luna vs. Intermediate Appellate Court entertaining the habeas corpus case on account of
In custody cases, the execution of a final the previous assumption by the Cavite Court and
judgment of the appellate court awarding the designation of petitioners as guardian ad
custody to the child’s biological parents may be litem of the ward.
stayed, if during the hearing on execution, the
child manifested that she would kill herself and Certiorari is the appropriate relief against
escape if she would be given to the custody of her deviation from judicial comity. And certainly,
biological parents. given the propensity of the Makati Court to
intrude and render nugatory an order or decision
The child’s best interest can override not only of another co-equal court, certiorari is the
procedural rules but also the parent’s rights to appropriate relief against deviation from the
the child’s custody. When the very life and doctrine of judicial comity.
existence of the minor child is at stake and the
child is of such age as to enable her to exercise an The alleged improper issuance of guardian’s
intelligent choice, courts can do no less than appointment and parental authority of mother
respect that choice and uphold the child’s right to under the Family Code are matters of defense
live in an atmosphere conducing to her physical, invocable at the Cavite Court.
moral and intellectual development.
Reynaldo Espiritu and Guillerma Layug vs.
Cervantes vs. Fajardo Court of Appeals and Teresita Masanding
In all cases involving the custody, care, The argument that moral laxity or the habit of
education, and property of the children – the flirting from one man to another does not fall
latter’s welfare is paramount. The provision that under “compelling reasons” is neither
no mother shall be separated from a child under meritorious nor applicable in this case.
 against his parents and grandparents,
The illicit or immoral activities of the mother had except when such testimony is
already caused emotional disturbances, indispensable in a crime against the
personality conflicts, and exposure to conflicting descendant or by one parent against the
moral values, not to mention her conviction for other.
the crime of bigamy, which from the records
appears to have become final. Comment
1. The descendant cannot be compelled, but
Leouel Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals and if he wants to testify here, he may do so.
Spouses Leopoldo and Ofelia Bedia (Note: Under the Rules of Evidence, “no
The considerations relied upon by the Court of person may be compelled to testify
Appeals (e.g., the grandparents’ financial ability against his parents, other direct
and the love and affection showered on the boy) ascendants, children or other direct
are insufficient to defeat petitioner’s parental descendants.” [Rule 130, Sec. 25, Rules of
authority and right to custody. Court, as amended] Thereupon, should a
conflict arise between this provision and
Otherwise put, private respondent’s Article 215, the latter prevails. Reason: A
demonstrated love and affection for the boy procedural rule cannot impair
notwithstanding, the legitimate father is still substantive law.
preferred over the grandparents. To award the 2. The Article applies to a criminal, not a
father custody would help enhance the bond civil case.
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.

ARTICLE 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.

Comment
Substitute parental authority is exercised by the
surviving grandparent in case of death, absence,
or unsuitability of the parents.

Taking into account the same considerations

mentioned in Article 213, the one designated by
the court, in case several survive, exercises
authority.

ARTICLE 215. No descendant shall be

compelled, in a criminal case, to testify
 Chapter 2 A teacher whipped a student with a bamboo stick
SUBSTITUTE AND SPECIAL PARENTAL causing severe bruises on the legs and thighs.
AUTHORITY The teacher did this to punish the latter who had
tripped a classmate, causing her to hit the edge
ARTICLE 216. In default of parents or of a desk with her knee hitting a nail of the desk.
judicially appointed guardian, the Is the teacher liable criminally?
following persons shall exercise substitute Ruling
parental authority over the child in the No, because of lack of criminal intent. This is
order indicated: without prejudice to a civil or administrative
1. The surviving grandparent, as case. (Dissenters opined that only parents can
provided in Article 214; inflict corporal punishment. Besides, the
2. The oldest brother or sister, over 21 whipping violated human rights.)
years of age, unless unfit or
disqualified; and ARTICLE 217. in case of foundlings,
3. The child’s actual custodian, over 21 abandoned, neglected or abused children
years of age, unless unfit or and other children similarly situated,
disqualified. parental authority shall be entrusted in
Whenever the appointment of a judicial summary judicial proceedings to heads of
guardian over the property of the child children’s homes, orphanages and similar
becomes necessary, the same order of institutions duly accredited by the proper
preference shall be observed. government agency.

Comment Comment
An aunt by virtue of the relationship alone, is not Here, there must be summary judicial
included in the Article. proceedings before entrustment is made.

Macazo v. Nuñez ARTICLE 218. The school, its

Facts administrators and teachers, or the
The elder brother of a minor girl placed the latter individual, entity or institution engaged in
under the employ of a married couple. Upon child care shall have special parental
discovering that the sister subsequently indulged authority and responsibility over the minor
in adulterous and scandalous relations with her child while under their supervision,
married employer, the brother asked her to instruction or custody.
return to their home but the girl expressed
preference for remaining with her employer. The Authority and responsibility shall apply to
brother sued for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain all authorized activities whether inside or
custody of the sister. outside the premises of the school, entity or
Ruling institution.
The writ of habeas corpus will be granted despite
the desire of the girl to remain with her married Comment
employer. A minor cannot choose to continue an Note that the authority and responsibility shall
illicit and immoral relationship. The elder apply to all authorized activities whether
brother, wielding substitute parental authority, INSIDE or OUTSIDE the premise.
may thus obtain custody over the erring sister.
ARTICLE 219. Those given authority and
Bagajo vs. Marawe responsibility under the preceding Article
Facts: shall be principally and solidarily liable for
damages caused by the acts or omissions of the same cause of action. The administrative
the unemancipated minor. The parents, action before the school authorities can proceed
judicial guardians or the persons exercising independently of the criminal action because
substitute parental authority over said these 2 actions are based on different
minor shall be subsidiarily liable. considerations. In the former, the student’s
suitability or propriety as a student is the
The respective liabilities of those referred paramount concern and interest of the school;
to in the preceding paragraph shall not while in the latter, what is at stake is his being a
apply if it is proved that they exercised the citizen who is subject to the penal statutes and is
proper diligence required under the the primary concern of the State.
particular circumstances.
It is the better view that there are instances
All other cases not covered by this and the when the school might be called upon to exercise
preceding article shall be governed by the its power over its student or students for acts
provisions of the Civil Code on quasi- committed outside the school and beyond school
delicts. hours in the following: (1) in case of violations of
school policies or regulations occurring in
Comment connection with a school-sponsored activity off-
1. Note Who are Principally and Who are campus; or (2) in case where the misconduct of
Subsidiarily Liable. the student involves his status as a student or
2. Note also the defense of having exercised affects the good name or reputation of the school.
proper diligence.
3. Note finally the reference to the As a defense by the defendants sued, the latter
provisions of the Civil Code on quasi- may claim that they exercised the proper
delicts (Culpa Aquiliana or Acts of diligence required by the particular
Negligence) circumstances. This is not exactly the diligence of
a good father of the family. It is more or less a
Jose S. Angeles vs. Hon. Rafael Sison flexible rule and may be equated with Article
The true test of a school’s right to investigate, or 1173, first paragraph and first sentence which
otherwise suspend or expel a student for a provides: “The fault or negligence of the obligor
misconduct committed outside the school consist in the omission of that diligence which is
premises and beyond school hours is not the time required by the nature of the obligation and
or place of the offense, but its effect upon the corresponds with the circumstances of the
moral and efficiency of the school and whether it, persons, of the time and of the place.”
in fact, is adverse to the school’s good order,
welfare and the advancement of its students. The Amadora, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al
power of the school over its students does not Facts
cease absolutely when they leave the school Like any prospective graduate, Alfonso Amadora
premises, and that conduct outside of school was looking forward to the commencement
hours may subject a student to school discipline exercise where he would ascend the stage and in
if it directly affects the good order and welfare of the presence of his relatives and friends receive
the school or has a direct and immediate effect on his high school diploma. These ceremonies were
the discipline or general welfare of the school. scheduled om April 16, 1972. As it turned out,
though, fate would intervene and deny him that
The pendency or the dismissal of the criminal awaited experience. On April 13, 1972, while
action against an erring student does not abate they were in the auditorium of their school, the
the administrative proceedings which involves Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, a classmate,
Pablito Daffon, fired a gun that mortally hit the premise of the school at any time when its
Alfredo, ending all his expectations and his life authority could be validly exercised over him.
as well. The victim was only 17 years old.

Daffon was convicted of homicide through

reckless imprudence. Additionally, the herein
petitioners, as the victim’s parents, filed a civil
action for damages under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code against the Colegio de San Jose-
Recoletos, its rector, the high school principal,
the dean of boy, and the physics teacher, together
with Daffon and 2 other students, through their
respective parents. The complaint against the
students was later dropped. After trial, the CFI
of Cebu held the remaining defendants liable to
the plaintiffs in the sum of P294,984,
representing death compensation, loss of earning
capacity, costs of litigation, funeral expenses,
moral damages, exemplary damages, and
attorney’s fees. On appeal to the respondent
court, however, the decision was reversed and all
the defendants were completely absolved.

In its decision, which is now the subject of this

petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, the respondent court found that Article
2180 was not applicable as the Colegio de San
Jose-Recoletos was not a school of arts and
trades but an academic institution of learning. It
also held that the students were not in the
custody of the school at the time of the incident
as the semester had already ended, that there
was no clear identification of the fatal gun, and
that in any event the defendants had exercised
the necessary diligence in preventing the injury.

Ruling
It is not necessary that at the time of the injury,
the teacher be physically present an in a
position to prevents it. Custody does not connote
immediate and actual physical control but refers
more to the influence exerted on the child and
the discipline instilled in him as a result of such
influence. Thus, for the injuries caused by the
student, the teacher and not the parent shall be
held responsible if the tort was committed within
 Chapter 3 Comment
EFFECTS OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY Some Duties and Rights of Parents
UPON THE PERSONS OF THE CHILDREN a) To support (even after reaching the age of
majority).
ARTICLE 220. The parents and those b) To have the children in their company
exercising parental authority shall have (for this purpose, the writ of habeas
with respect to their unemancipated corpus may be availed of, if the children
children on wards the following rights and are in the company of others who refuse
duties: to surrender them, and this is so even
1. To keep them in their company, to when the children voluntarily desire to
support, educate and instruct them be with said others.)
by right precept and good example, (Note: Parents may or may not allow
and to provide for their upbringing children below 18 to be employed.)
in keeping with their means;
2. To give them love and affection, (Note: Even of the parents allow the
advice and counsel, companionship children to work as servants of other to
and understanding; pay off what the parents OWE the said
3. To provide them with moral and others, still the parents can get back the
spiritual guidance, inculcate in them custody of said children.)
honesty, integrity, self-discipline,
self-reliance, industry and thrift, Banzon v. Alviar et al.
stimulate their interest in civic Facts
affairs, and inspire in them The father entrusted his child to the custody of a
compliance with the duties of relative, and then the father left for abroad.
citizenship; Meantime, the mother claims custody, but the
4. To enhance, protect, preserve and relative refuses on the ground that the child had
maintain their physical and mental been left to him by the father.
health at all times; Held
5. To furnish them with good and The mother can get the child, for in default of the
wholesome educational materials, father, the mother can assume custody and
supervise their activities, recreation authority over the minor.
and association with others, protect
them from bad company, and c) To educate and instruct them within
prevent them from acquiring habits their means.
detrimental to their health, studies d) To represent them in all actions which
and morals; may redound to their benefit. (Thus, the
6. To present them in all matters parents of a 17-year-old girl may
affecting their interests; withdraw an appeal to the higher court,
7. To demand from them respect and filed on behalf of said girl by an uncle.)
obedience; The lack of a formal appointment of the
8. To impose discipline on them as may minor’s parent as guardian ad litem may
be required under the be overlooked and disregarded because it
circumstances; and is her or his duty “to represent them in
9. To perform such other duties as are all actions which may redound to their
imposed by law upon parents and benefit.” The Court will not prevent the
guardians. mother from representing her children
specially when her capacity to sue in
 their behalf has not been questioned e. Due to declaration of nullity or
during the trial. (Donations and annulment of marriage decreed by
inheritances may be received by parents a court or by a church as ling as
in behalf of their children. [Articles 741, he/she is entrusted with the
1044]) custody if the children;
e) To correct and punish them moderately f. Due to abandonment of spouse for
(this includes a bit of corporal at least one year.
punishment because cruelty on this point 3. Any other person who solely provides
can result in criminal liability under parental care and support to a child or
RPC, as well as in the deprivation or children;
suspension of parental authority.) 4. Unmarried mother/father who has
preferred to keep rear her/his
Solo Parents’ Welfare Act child/children instead of having others
The “Solo Parents’ Welfare Act of 2000” otherwise care for them or give them up to a
known as RA 8972, as approved on November 7, welfare institution; and
2000. 5. Any family member who assumes the
responsibility of head of family as a
The law’s declared policy provides that “it is th result of the death, abandonment,
policy of the State to promote the family as the disappearance, or prolonged absence of
foundation of the nation, strengthen its the parents or solo parent.
solidarity, and ensure its total development.” (Note: A change in the status or circumstances of
(Section 2, RA 8792) the parent claiming benefits, such the he/she is
no longer left alone with the responsibility of
The term “solo parent” (or “single parent") parenthood, shall terminate his/her authority for
defined by law as falling under any of the these benefits.
following categories, thus:
1. A woman who gives birth as a result of Benefits Are Available to Solo Parents
rape and other crimes against chastity a) Comprehensive package of social
even without a final conviction of the development and welfare services, to
offender, provided that the other keeps initially include:
and raises the child (Section 3 [a][i], RA 1. Livelihood development services
8972) 2. Counselling services
2. Parent left solo or alone with the 3. Parent effectiveness services
responsibility of parenthood: 4. Critical incidence debriefing
a. Due to death of spouse; 5. Special projects for individuals in need of
b. While the spouse is detained or protection
serving sentence for a criminal b) Flexible work schedule
conviction for at least one year; c) No work discrimination on account of
c. Due to physical and/or mental status
incapacity of spouse as certified by d) Parental leave, in addition to leave
a public medical practitioner; privileges
d. Due to separation or de facto e) Educational benefits
separation from spouse for at least f) Housing benefits
one year, as long as he/she is g) Medical assistance
entrusted with the custody of the
children; ARTICLE 221. Parents and other persons
exercising parental authority shall be
civilly liable for the injuries and damages Article 58 – Torts – Parents and guardians are
caused by the acts or omissions of their responsible for the damages caused by the child
unemancipated children living in their under their parental authority in accordance
company and under their parental with the Civil Code.” “Article 221 of the Family
authority subject to the appropriate Code has similarly insisted upon the requisite
defense provided by law. that the child, doer of the tortious act, shall have
been in the actual custody of the parents sought
Comment to be held liable for the ensuing damage.”
This speaks of the civil liability of those
exercising parental authority for the acts and ARTICLE 222. The courts may appoint a
omissions of the unemancipated children. guardian of the child’s property, or a
guardian ad litem when the best interests
Tamargo vs. Court of Appeals of the child so requires.
The civil liability imposed upon parents for the
torts of their minor children living with them, ARTICLE 223. The parent or, in their
may be seen to be based upon the parental absence or incapacity, the individual, entity
authority vested by the Civil Code upon such or institution exercising parental authority
parents. The civil law assumes that when an may petition the proper court of the place
unemancipated child living with its parents where the child resides for an order
commit a tortious act, the parents were negligent providing for disciplinary measures over
in the performance of their legal and natural the child. The child shall be entitled to the
duty closely to supervise the child who is in their assistance of counsel, either of his choice or
custody and control. Parental liability is in other appointed by the court, and the summary
words, anchored with presumed parental hearing shall be conducted wherein the
dereliction in the discharge of the duties petitioner and the child shall be heard.
accompanying such authority. The parental
dereliction is, of course, only presumed and the However, if in the same proceeding the
presumption can be overturned by proof that the court shall find the petitioner at fault,
parents had exercised all the diligence of a good irrespective of the merits of the petition, or
father of a family to prevent the damage. when the circumstances so warrant, the
court may also order the deprivation or
In the instant case, the shooting of Jennifer by suspension of parental authority or adopt
Adelberto with an air rifle occurred when such other measures as it may deem just
parental authority was still lodged in respondent and proper.
Bundoc spouses, the natural parents of the minor
Adelberto. It would thus follow that the natural ARTICLE 224. The measures referred to in
parents who had then actual custody of the the preceding article may include the
minor Adelberto, are the indispensable parties to commitment of the child for not more than
the suit for damages. 30 days in entities or institutions engaged
in childcare or in children's homes duly
Under the Civil Code, the basis of parental accredited by the proper government
liability for the torts of a minor child is the agency.
relationship existing between the parents and
the minor child living with them an over whom, The parent exercising parental authority
the law presumes, the parents exercise shall not interfere with the care of the child
supervision and control. Article 58 of the Child whenever committed but should provide for
and Youth Welfare Code, reenacted this rule: the his support. Upon proper petition or at
its own instance, the court may terminate REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9048
the commitment of the child whenever just March 22, 2001
and proper.
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR
MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE
CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT A
CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR
IN AN ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST
NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL
REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF A
JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS
PURPOSE ARTICLES 376 AND 412 OF THE
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of

Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:

Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or

Typographical Error and Change of First
Name or Nickname – No entry in a civil
register shall be changed or corrected without a
judicial order, except for clerical or typographical
errors and change of first name or nickname
which can be corrected or changed by the
concerned city or municipal civil registrar or
consul general in accordance with the provisions
of this Act and its implementing rules and
regulations.

Section 2. Definition of Terms – As used in

this Act, the following terms shall mean:

(1) "City or Municipal civil registrar" refers to the

head of the local civil registry office of the city or
municipality, as the case may be, who is
appointed as such by the city or municipal mayor
in accordance with the provisions of existing
laws.

(2) "Petitioner" refers to a natural person filing

the petition and who has direct and personal
interest in the correction of a clerical or
typographical error in an entry or change of first
name or nickname in the civil register.
(3) "Clerical or typographical error" refers to a with the local civil registrar of the place where
mistake committed in the performance of clerical the interested party is presently residing or
work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing domiciled. The two (2) local civil registrars
an entry in the civil register that is harmless and concerned will then communicate to facilitate the
innocuous, such as misspelled name or processing of the petition.
misspelled place of birth or the like, which is
visible to the eyes or obvious to the Citizens of the Philippines who are presently
understanding, and can be corrected or changed residing or domiciled in foreign countries may
only by reference to other existing record or file their petition, in person, with the nearest
records: Provided, however, That no correction Philippine Consulates.
must involve the change of nationality, age,
status or sex of the petitioner. The petitions filed with the city or municipal civil
registrar or the consul general shall be processed
(4) "Civil Register" refers to the various registry in accordance with this Act and its implementing
books and related certificates and documents rules and regulations.
kept in the archives of the local civil registry
offices, Philippine Consulates and of the Office of All petitions for the clerical or typographical
the Civil Registrar General. errors and/or change of first names or nicknames
may be availed of only once.
(5) "Civil registrar general" refers to the
Administrator of the National Statistics Office Section 4. Grounds for Change of First
which is the agency mandated to carry out and Name or Nickname. – The petition for change
administer the provision of laws on civil of first name or nickname may be allowed in any
registration. of the following cases:

(6) "First name" refers to a name or nickname (1) The petitioner finds the first name or
given to a person which may consist of one or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor
more names in addition to the middle and last or extremely difficult to write or pronounce.
names.
(2) The new first name or nickname has been
Section 3. Who May File the Petition and habitually and continuously used by the
Where. – Any person having direct and personal petitioner and he has been publicly known by
interest in the correction of a clerical or that by that first name or nickname in the
typographical error in an entry and/or change of community: or
first name or nickname in the civil register may
file, in person, a verified petition with the local (3) The change will avoid confusion.
civil registry office of the city or municipality
where the record being sought to be corrected or Section 5. Form and Contents of the
changed is kept. Petition. – The petition shall be in the form of
an affidavit, subscribed and sworn to before any
In case the petitioner has already migrated to person authorized by the law to administer
another place in the country and it would not be oaths. The affidavit shall set forth facts
practical for such party, in terms of necessary to establish the merits of the petition
transportation expenses, time and effort to and shall show affirmatively that the petitioner
appear in person before the local civil registrar is competent to testify to the matters stated. The
keeping the documents to be corrected or petitioner shall state the particular erroneous
changed, the petition may be filed, in person,
entry or entries, which are sought to be corrected petition and its supporting documents sufficient
and/or the change sought to be made. in form and substance.

The petition shall be supported with the The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul
following documents: general shall act on the petition and shall render
a decision not later than five (5) working days
(1) A certified true machine copy of the certificate after the completion of the posting and/or
or of the page of the registry book containing the publication requirement. He shall transmit a
entry or entries sought to be corrected or copy of his decision together with the records of
changed. the proceedings to the Office of the Civil
Registrar General within five (5) working days
(2) At least two (2) public or private documents from the date of the decision.
showing the correct entry or entries upon which
the correction or change shall be based; and Section 7. Duties and Powers of the Civil
Registrar General. – The civil registrar general
(3) Other documents which the petitioner or the shall, within ten (10) working days from receipt
city or municipal civil registrar or the consul of the decision granting a petition, exercise the
general may consider relevant and necessary for power to impugn such decision by way of an
the approval of the petition. objection based on the following grounds:

In case of change of first name or nickname, the (1) The error is not clerical or typographical;
petition shall likewise be supported with the
documents mentioned in the immediately (2) The correction of an entry or entries in the
preceding paragraph. In addition, the petition civil register is substantial or controversial as it
shall be published at least once a week for two (2) affects the civil status of a person; or
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation. Furthermore, the petitioner shall (3) The basis used in changing the first name or
submit a certification from the appropriate law nickname of a person does not fall under Section
enforcement agencies that he has no pending 4.
case or no criminal record.
The civil registrar general shall immediately
The petition and its supporting papers shall be notify the city or municipal civil registrar or the
filed in three (3) copies to be distributed as consul general of the action taken on the
follows: first copy to the concerned city or decision. Upon receipt of the notice thereof, the
municipal civil registrar, or the consul general; city or municipal civil registrar or the consul
second copy to the Office of the Civil Registrar general shall notify the petitioner of such action.
General; and third copy to the petitioner.
The petitioner may seek reconsideration with the
Section 6. Duties of the City or Municipal civil registrar general or file the appropriate
Civil Registrar or the Consul General. – The petition with the proper court.
city or municipal civil registrar or the consul
general to whom the petition is presented shall If the civil registrar general fails to exercise his
examine the petition and its supporting power to impugn the decision of the city or
documents. He shall post the petition in a municipal civil registrar or of the consul general
conspicuous place provided for that purpose for within the period prescribed herein, such
ten (10) consecutive days after he finds the decision shall become final and executory.
Where the petition is denied by the city or provisions thereof shall not be affected by such
municipal civil registrar or the consul general, declaration.
the petitioner may either appeal the decision to
the civil registrar general or file the appropriate Section 13. Repealing Clause - All laws,
petition with the proper court. decrees, orders, rules and regulations, other
issuances, or parts thereof inconsistent with the
Section 8. Payment of Fees. – The city or provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or
municipal civil registrar or the consul general modified accordingly.
shall be authorized to collect reasonable fees as a
condition for accepting the petition. An indigent Section 14. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall
petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete
the said fee. publication in at least two (2) national
newspapers of general circulation.
Section 9. Penalty Clause. - A person who
violates any of the provisions of this Act shall, Approved: March 22, 2001
upon conviction, be penalized by imprisonment of
not less than six (6) years but not more than (Sgd.)
twelve (12) years, or a fine of not less than Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not more than GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
One Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,000.00), or President of the Philippines
both, at the discretion of the court.
Personal Notes:
In addition, if the offender is a government Republic Act No. 9048, enacted on March 22,
official or employee he shall suffer the penalties 2001, authorizes city or municipal civil registrars
provided under civil service laws, rules and and consul generals to correct clerical or
regulations. typographical errors in civil registers and change
first names or nicknames without the need for a
Section 10. Implementing Rules and judicial order. The law defines terms such as
Regulations. - The civil registrar general shall, "clerical or typographical error," "civil registrar,"
in consultation with the Department of Justice, and "first name." It specifies the grounds for
the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Office of changing first names or nicknames, including
the Supreme Court Administrator, the situations where the name is ridiculous,
University of the Philippines Law Center and the dishonorable, difficult to write or pronounce,
Philippine Association of Civil Registrars, issue habitually used, or for the avoidance of
the necessary rules and regulations for the confusion.
effective implementation of this Act not later
than three (3) months from the effectivity of this Individuals with a direct and personal interest in
law. correcting errors or changing names can file a
petition with the local civil registry office where
Section 11. Retroactivity Clause. - This Act the record is kept. The law outlines the
shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not procedures for filing petitions, including the
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in necessary supporting documents and publication
accordance with the Civil Code and other laws. requirements for name changes. The city or
municipal civil registrar or consul general
Section 12. Separability Clause. - If any examines the petition, posts it for public notice,
portion or provision of this Act is declared void or and issues a decision within five working days.
unconstitutional, the remaining portions or
The Civil Registrar General has the authority to PARENTAL AUTHORITY CASES
object to decisions on specified grounds, and the Case No. 1
petitioner may seek reconsideration or file a LEOUEL SANTOS, SR., petitioner-appellant,
court petition. The law permits reasonable fees vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and SPOUSES
for filing petitions, with exemptions for indigent LEOPOLDO and OFELIA BEDIA,
petitioners. Violators may face imprisonment or respondents-appellees.
fines, and government officials may be subject to G.R. No. 113054 March 16, 1995
additional penalties under civil service laws. The
law grants the Civil Registrar General the power FACTS
to issue implementing rules and regulations, has The case involves a petition for review seeking to
retroactive effect without prejudicing vested overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals
rights, includes a separability clause, and repeals that granted custody of six-year-old Leouel
inconsistent laws. The law became effective 15 Santos, Jr. to his maternal grandparents,
days after complete publication in at least two Leopoldo and Ofelia Bedia, rather than to his
national newspapers of general circulation. father, petitioner Leouel Santos, Sr. Leouel
Santos, Sr. and Julia Bedia, the boy's parents,
were married in 1986 and had one child, Leouel
Santos, Jr., born in 1987. After the boy's birth, he
was placed in the care of his maternal
grandparents, who allege that they paid for
hospital bills and provided subsequent support
because the petitioner could not afford to do so.

Julia Bedia-Santos, the boy's mother, went to the

United States to work in May 1988, leaving
Leouel Santos, Jr. in the care of his
grandparents. Petitioner claimed ignorance of
Julia's whereabouts and unsuccessfully
attempted to locate her in the United States. The
dispute arose when, in 1990, petitioner allegedly
abducted the child during a visit to the Bedia
household, taking him to Bacong, Negros
Oriental.

The grandparents filed a "Petition for Care,

Custody, and Control of Minor Ward Leouel
Santos, Jr.," resulting in a trial court order
awarding custody to them. The Court of Appeals
affirmed this decision. Petitioner contends that
the award of custody to the grandparents is
inappropriate since they failed to prove him unfit
as a father. Private respondents argue that they
are better equipped to provide for the child's
welfare and happiness, citing an air-conditioned
room and petitioner's frequent reassignments as
factors. They claim petitioner did not contribute
financially to the child's support.
 capacity alone. The decision of the Court of
Petitioner asserts that private respondents' Appeals awarding custody to the grandparents
reasons for custody are insufficient, while private was reversed and set aside.
respondents argue that, as maternal
grandparents who have demonstrated love and
affection for the child, they are best suited to
promote his welfare. The case revolves around
the best interests of the child and whether
custody should be granted to the father or
maternal grandparents based on their respective
capabilities and circumstances.

ISSUE
Who should properly be awarded custody of the
minor Leouel Santos, Jr.

RULING
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Leouel
Santos, Sr., granting him custody over his minor
son, Leouel Santos Jr. The court emphasized that
parental authority is an inalienable right, and
custody should be awarded to the natural
parents unless they are proven to be unfit or
unsuitable. The court rejected the argument that
the grandparents, despite their love and financial
standing, should be granted custody over the
father, noting that the law gives preference to
the natural parents.

The court found insufficient grounds to deprive

the petitioner of his parental authority, and his
past inattention was not considered
abandonment. The court also dismissed the
argument that the petitioner's military service
and occasional separation from his family should
be a barrier to custody, stating that many men in
uniform are still the natural guardians of their
children. Additionally, the court noted that the
petitioner's use of trickery to take custody of his
son, while unjustifiable, is not a sufficient ground
to deny him custody.

In conclusion, the court granted the petitioner

custody of his son, emphasizing the importance
of the natural parent-child relationship and
rejecting the notion that the grandparents should
be awarded custody based on love and financial
Case 2 the respective resources and social and moral
TERESITA SAGALA-ESLAO, petitioner, vs. situations of the contending parties.
COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA PAZ
CORDERO-OUYE, respondents. The court noted that petitioner, despite having
G.R. No. 116773 January 16, 1997 the financial means, owned a store and earned a
decent income, had only seen Angelica on three
FACTS occasions during the time the child stayed with
Petitioner Maria Paz Cordero-Ouye and her. The court concluded that placing Angelica
Reynaldo Eslao got married on June 22, 1984. with her mother, who was now married to a well-
They lived with Reynaldo's mother, respondent off orthodontist in the USA, would likely provide
Teresita Eslao, in Paco, Manila, and had two the child with a brighter future.
children, Leslie and Angelica. After Reynaldo's
death on August 6, 1990, petitioner initially The court emphasized the inalienable and non-
intended to bring Angelica to Pampanga but was transferable nature of parental authority, stating
persuaded by the respondent to leave the child that entrusting the custody of a minor to another
with her to provide company and assuage her person, even in writing, only constitutes
grief. temporary custody and does not amount to
abandonment or renunciation of parental
Later, petitioner developed a relationship with authority. The decision affirmed the trial court's
Dr. James Manabu-Ouye, a Japanese-American grant of custody to the respondent based on the
orthodontist. They decided to get married on child's best interests and the mother's failure to
March 18, 1992, and petitioner migrated to San prove abandonment.
Francisco, California, USA, on January 15, 1993,
to join her new husband. She returned to the
Philippines on June 24, 1993, expressing her
desire to reunite with her children and bring
them to the United States. She informed
respondent about her plans and her husband's
willingness to adopt Leslie and Angelica.

However, respondent resisted, claiming that

petitioner had abandoned Angelica, who was
entrusted to her care when she was ten days old.
Despite petitioner's efforts, respondent refused to
return custody. Petitioner sought legal assistance
and filed a petition to regain custody of Angelica.
After a trial, the lower court granted the petition,
ordering the immediate transfer of custody to the
natural mother, Maria Paz Cordero-Ouye.

ISSUE
Whether the petitioner (Teresita) should be
given the custody of the child.

RULING
NO. The court considered the child's welfare as
the paramount consideration, taking into account
Case 3 ISSUE
BONIFACIA P. VANCIL, petitioner, vs. Whether the mother or grandmother should be
HELEN G. BELMES, respondent. the guardian.
G.R. No. 132223 June 19, 2001
RULING
FACTS The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the
The case involves a petition for review on Court of Appeals, which held that the natural
certiorari of a decision by the Court of Appeals in mother, respondent Helen Belmes, has the
a guardianship matter. Bonifacia Vancil, the preferential right to be the guardian of the
mother of Reeder C. Vancil, a deceased Navy minor, Vincent. This preference is grounded in
serviceman of the United States, initiated Article 211 of the Family Code, which grants
guardianship proceedings for Reeder's two joint parental authority to the father and mother
children, Valerie and Vincent, born out of his over their common children. The Court
common-law relationship with Helen G. Belmes. emphasized that the right of parents to the
Bonifacia Vancil was appointed as the legal and custody of their minor children is inherent,
judicial guardian over the minors in July 1987. deriving from the nature of the parental
relationship and supported by law and public
Helen G. Belmes, the natural mother of the policy.
minors, opposed the guardianship proceedings,
asserting that she had filed a similar petition in The petitioner, who is the surviving grandparent,
another court. She later sought the removal of sought to be appointed as the guardian based on
Bonifacia as the guardian, claiming that she was substitute parental authority as provided in
the natural mother exercising parental authority Article 214 of the Family Code. However, the
over the minors. Court reiterated the principle that substitute
parental authority is to be exercised by the
The trial court rejected Belmes' motion, but the surviving grandparent only in cases of death,
Court of Appeals reversed the decision, absence, or unsuitability of the parents.
dismissing the guardianship proceedings
initiated by Bonifacia Vancil. The Court of To displace the natural mother as the guardian,
Appeals emphasized the preferential right of the petitioner needed to prove the unsuitability
parents, specifically the mother, as the natural of the respondent. The petitioner argued that the
guardian of minor children, without the need for respondent was morally unfit due to her live-in
a court appointment, except for good reasons. partner raping Valerie, but this argument was
The court found that there was no record of any deemed irrelevant since Valerie had reached the
reason justifying the deprivation of Belmes' legal age of majority and was no longer a subject of the
rights as the natural guardian. guardianship proceeding.

Bonifacia Vancil filed a petition with the Even assuming the unsuitability of the
Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of respondent, the Court found the petitioner unfit
Appeals erred in ruling that the preferential to be the substitute guardian. The petitioner,
right of a parent to be appointed guardian is being an American citizen and a resident of
absolute. She also contested the Court of Colorado, would face challenges in fulfilling the
Appeals' decision to disqualify her as the responsibilities and obligations required of a
guardian based on her U.S. citizenship. guardian in the Philippines. The Court also
noted that the petitioner had not set foot in the
Philippines since 1987, and her age, along with a
prior conviction for libel, raised doubts about her Case 6
ability to fulfill the duties of a guardian. JOYCELYN PABLO-GUALBERTO, petitioner,
vs. CRISANTO RAFAELITO GUALBERTO V,
The Court affirmed the decision with a respondent.
modification that Valerie, having reached the age G.R. No. 154994. June 28, 2005.
of majority, would no longer be under the
guardianship of respondent Helen Belmes. CRISANTO RAFAELITO G. GUALBERTO V,
petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; Hon.
HELEN B. RICAFORT, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Parañaque City, Branch
260; and JOYCELYN D. PABLO-
GUALBERTO, respondents.
G.R. No. 156254. June 28, 2005.

FACTS
On March 12, 2002, Crisanto Rafaelito G.
Gualberto V filed a petition before the Regional
Trial Court of Parañaque City seeking the
declaration of nullity of his marriage to Joycelyn
D. Pablo Gualberto. He also filed an ancillary
prayer for custody pendente lite of their almost
4-year-old son, Crisanto Rafaello P. Gualberto
(referred to as the child). Crisanto alleged that
Joycelyn had taken the child away from their
conjugal home and his school in Parañaque City
when she decided to abandon him in early
February 2002.

After a hearing on April 2, 2002, the court

awarded the custody pendente lite of the child to
Crisanto, citing his testimony, surveillance
findings, and statements from witnesses.
However, on May 17, 2002, the court issued an
order reversing its previous decision and
awarding custody to Joycelyn. The court
mentioned that the child, being barely four years
old, should not be separated from his mother
unless compelling reasons were found. The court
granted Joycelyn custody with the right of
Crisanto to have the child every other weekend.

Feeling aggrieved by the May 17, 2002 order,

Crisanto filed a Petition for Certiorari before the
Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial court. He
argued that the May 17 order violated Section 14
of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and
superseded the valid and subsisting April 3, 2002 Case No. 8
order awarding him custody pendente lite. ST. MARY’S ACADEMY, petitioner, vs.
WILLIAM CARPITANOS and LUCIA S.
ISSUE CARPITANOS, GUADA DANIEL, JAMES
Is it Article 213 or Article 211 which applies in DANIEL II, JAMES DANIEL, SR., and
this case involving four-year old Rafaello? VIVENCIO VILLANUEVA, respondents.
G.R. No. 143363 February 6, 2002
RULING
In a case involving the custody pendente lite of a FACTS
child under seven years old, the court ruled in Spouses William Carpitanos and Lucia
favor of the mother, emphasizing the mandatory Carpitanos filed a case for damages against
character of Article 213 of the Family Code and James Daniel II, his parents James Daniel Sr.
Section 642 of Rule 99 of the Rules of Court. and Guada Daniel, the vehicle owner Vivencio
These provisions state that no child under seven Villanueva, and St. Mary's Academy. The case
years of age shall be separated from the mother stemmed from a vehicular accident that resulted
unless there are compelling reasons to do so. The in the death of the Carpitanos' son, Sherwin
court highlighted the importance of the child's Carpitanos. The trial court, in its decision dated
welfare, with the best interest of the child being February 20, 1997, ordered St. Mary's Academy
a primary consideration in accordance with the to pay various amounts to the Carpitanos,
Convention on the Rights of the Child. The court including indemnity, actual damages for burial
considered various factors, including the parents' expenses, attorney's fees, and moral damages.
material resources, moral and social situations, The liability of James Daniel II was absolved,
care and devotion shown, religious background, being a minor at the time and under the special
moral uprightness, home environment, time parental authority of St. Mary's Academy. James
availability, and the emotional and educational Daniel Sr. and Guada Daniel were ordered to pay
needs of the child, in determining custody. subsidiarily in case of St. Mary's Academy's
insolvency, while Vivencio Villanueva was
absolved of any liability.

St. Mary's Academy appealed the decision to the

Court of Appeals, which, on February 29, 2000,
affirmed the decision but reduced the actual
damages to P25,000. St. Mary's Academy filed a
motion for reconsideration, which the Court of
Appeals denied on May 22, 2000.

ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding
the petitioner liable for damages for the death of
Sherwin Carpitanos.

RULING
The Court reversed the decision of the Court of
Appeals, holding petitioner St. Mary’s Academy
not liable for the death of Sherwin Carpitanos.
The Court of Appeals found St. Mary’s Academy
negligent under Articles 2187 and 2198 of the
Family Code for allowing a minor to drive and Case No. 9
not having a teacher accompany the students RENALYN A. MASBATE and SPOUSES
during an enrollment drive. However, the RENATO MASBATE and
Supreme Court ruled that St. Mary’s Academy's MARLYN.MASBATE, Petitioners, vs. RICKY
negligence was not the proximate cause of the JAMES RELUCIO, Respondent.
accident. G.R. No. 235498, July 30, 2018

The Court emphasized that for liability, there FACTS

must be a direct and natural connection between Queenie was born to Renalyn and Ricky James,
the negligence and the injury. In this case, the who were living together without marriage. The
immediate cause of the accident was the relationship ended in April 2015, and Renalyn
detachment of the steering wheel guide of the went to Manila, leaving Queenie in Ricky
jeep, as admitted by the respondents. There was James's custody. Later, Renalyn's parents,
no evidence showing that St. Mary’s Academy Spouses Renato and Marlyn Masbate, took
allowed the minor to drive or that its negligence Queenie using a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
was the proximate cause of the accident. granted by Renalyn.

The Court held that liability for the accident, Ricky James filed a petition for habeas corpus
caused by either the minor's negligence or the and child custody, arguing that Renalyn's
mechanical defect, must be primarily attributed parents unlawfully took Queenie. The RTC ruled
to the minor’s parents. St. Mary’s Academy's in favor of Renalyn, citing Article 213 of the
negligence was only a remote cause, and between Family Code, which prohibits the separation of a
the remote cause and the injury, there was the child below seven years from the mother. The
intervening negligence of the minor's parents or RTC emphasized Renalyn's parental authority as
the mechanical defect. Therefore, St. Mary’s an unwed mother.
Academy could not be held directly liable for the
accident. Ricky James moved for reconsideration, claiming
lack of due process and challenging the speed of
The Court also deleted the award of moral the decision. The RTC denied the motion,
damages and death indemnity to the emphasizing Renalyn's parental authority and
respondents, as the proximate cause of the Ricky James's failure to prove her unfitness.
accident was not attributable to St. Mary’s
Academy. Additionally, the grant of attorney’s Ricky James appealed to the CA, asserting that
fees against the petitioner was deleted, as it the RTC failed to conduct a full-blown trial and
requires factual, legal, and equitable did not consider the best interests of the child.
justification. The CA set aside the RTC orders, remanding the
case for trial to determine custody. It affirmed
The registered owner of the vehicle, respondent custody to Renalyn "pending the outcome" and
Villanueva, was held responsible for damages granted Ricky James visitation rights.
resulting from the accident, given that the
overwhelming evidence pointed to the The CA denied petitioners' motion for
detachment of the steering wheel guide as the reconsideration and clarified visitation terms,
cause. allowing Ricky James limited and temporary
custody once a month. Petitioners filed a petition
for review on certiorari, arguing the RTC's
correct dismissal of the case. Ricky James
opposed the petition, claiming it was filed out of that custody decisions should be based on the
time. best interests of the child.

The CA held that a trial is necessary despite the The court disagreed with the Court of Appeals'
child's production and granted Ricky James grant of temporary custody to Ricky James,
limited monthly custody. Petitioners filed a stating that such a decision should only be made
petition for review, while Ricky James opposed, after a trial. It upheld visitation rights for Ricky
arguing timeliness. James, allowing him to spend two days per week
with Queenie, subject to Renalyn's written
ISSUE consent. The court directed the trial court to
Whether the CA correctly remanded the case a proceed with the case.
quo for determination of who should exercise
custody over Queenie.

RULING
The court ruled partially in favor of the
petitioner, Ricky James Relucio, in a case
involving the custody of his daughter, Queenie
Angel M. Relucio. The court acknowledged a
procedural lapse in the filing of the petition but
decided to overlook it in the interest of
substantial justice. The court emphasized the
importance of considering the best interests of
the child in custody cases.

The ruling discussed the legal framework

governing custody disputes, particularly in cases
involving illegitimate children. The court cited
relevant provisions of the Family Code,
emphasizing the tender-age presumption that no
child under seven years of age should be
separated from the mother unless compelling
reasons exist.

The court rejected the petitioner's reliance on a

previous case, Pablo-Gualberto, pointing out that
the statement in that case was based on a
misunderstanding of the context and that it does
not apply to situations involving illegitimate
children.

The court held that a trial is necessary to

determine whether Renalyn, the mother, has
been neglecting Queenie, and whether
compelling reasons exist to depart from the
tender-age presumption. The court stated that
the child's welfare is of utmost importance and
Case No. 10 RULING
Infant JULIAN YUSA Y CARAM, represented **Court's Ruling Summary:**
by his mother, MA. CHRISTINA YUSAY
CARAM, Petitioner, vs. Atty. MARIJOY D. The Supreme Court rejects Ma. Christina Yusay
SEGUI, Atty. SALLY D. ESCUTIN, VILMA B. Caram's petition, affirming the Regional Trial
CABRERA, and CELIA C. YANGCO, Court's (RTC) dismissal of her petition for a writ
Respondents. of amparo. Christina sought to regain custody of
G.R. No. 193652, August 5, 2014 her child, Julian Yusay Caram (Baby Julian),
from the Department of Social Welfare and
FACTS Development (DSWD). The court emphasizes
The case involves a petition for review on that the writ of amparo is designed to address
certiorari filed by Ma. Christina Yusay Caram extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances,
(Christina) under Rule 45 and Section 19 of the or threats thereof. As Christina's case primarily
Rule on the Writ of Amparo, challenging the involves child custody and parental rights, it falls
orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch outside the scope of amparo. The court
106 of Quezon City. Christina sought to regain underscores that "enforced disappearance"
parental authority and custody of her biological entails specific elements, including the State's
child, Julian Yusay Caram (Baby Julian), from refusal to disclose the person's fate, which is not
officers of the Department of Social Welfare and applicable in this case. The ruling concludes that
Development (DSWD). The background reveals the privilege of the writ of amparo is not
that Christina, after an amorous relationship applicable, affirming the RTC's orders without
with Marcelino Gicano Constantino III, initially prejudice to Christina's pursuit of proper legal
intended to have Baby Julian adopted to avoid remedies for child custody.
familial embarrassment. However, she later
changed her mind. DSWD declared Baby Julian
legally available for adoption, leading to a
petition for the writ of amparo by Christina. The
RTC, despite issuing the writ, subsequently
dismissed the petition, suggesting that Christina
should pursue a civil case for custody. Christina
appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing against
the dismissal and challenging the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9523, seeking the
benefits of the writ of amparo for reunion with
her son. The Supreme Court is urged to set aside
the RTC orders, declare R.A. No. 9523
unconstitutional, and address the alleged
violation of Christina's rights to life, liberty, and
security due to the "enforced separation" from
Baby Julian.

ISSUE
Whether a petition for a writ of amparo is the
proper recourse for obtaining parental authority
and custody of a minor child.