Margaret Querubin vs Silvestre On March that year, custody was granted to Silvestre under an interlocutory
decree (although the child was still kept in the neutral home) because at the
Querubin
July 29, 1950 G.R. No. L-3693
Ponente: Pablo, J.
Mara (This case was in Spanish ~.~ Lifted from 3B 2009-2010 Digest Group)
SUMMARY: Spouses Querubin residing in New Mexico, after a decree
of divorce was awarded joint custody in the form of equal visitation
rights towards their child named Querubina which was placed in a
neutral home. Because Margaret started living with another man,
Silvestre got custody through an interlocutory order and to protect the
child from the moms scandalous conduct, went to the Philippines.
Margaret had that interlocutory order modified to retaining her
custodial rights because she was now married and stable. She filed a
writ of habeas corpus to take back her child on the basis of the
modified interlocutory order. SC disagrees.
DOCTRINE:
Because the decree is interlocutory, it cannot be implemented in the
Philippines. Where the judgment is merely interlocutory, the
determination of the question by the Court which rendered it did not
settle and adjudge finally the rights of the parties.
FACTS:
In 1934, Silvestre Querubin, a Filipino, married petitioner Margaret Querubin,
in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 'They had a daughter, Querubina.
Margaret filed for divorce in 1948 alleging "mental cruelty." Silvestre filed a
countersuit for divorce alleging Margaret's infidelity. In 1949, the Superior
Court of Los Angeles granted the divorce and awarded "joint custody" of the
child. Querubina was to be kept in a neutral home subject to reasonable visits
by both parties. Both parents were restrained from taking Querubina out of
California without the permission of the Court.
time of the trial, Margaret was living with another man.
Upon Margaret's petition, the interlocutory decree was modified. Since she
had then married the man she was living with and had a stable home, the
Court granted custody to Margaret with reasonable limitations on the part of
the father.
Silvestre, together with Querubina, left San Francisco on November of the
same year, went to the Philippines and stayed in Cagayan, Ilocos Sur, with the
intent of protecting the child from the effects of her mother's scandalous
conduct. He wanted the child to be raised in a better environment.
In 1950, Margaret, through counsel, presented to the CFI a petition for
habeas corpus for the custody of Querubina urder the interlocutory decree of
the California Court. She claims that under Art. 48 of Rule 39, the decree of
the Los Angeles Court, granting her the child's custody, must be complied
within the Philippines.]
ISSUES/HELD:
1. WON the decree of a foreign court may be complied with in the
Philippines.
RATIO:
"The decree is by no means final. It is subject to change with the
circumstances. The first decree awarded the custody of the child to the father,
prohibiting the mother from taking the child to her (Margaret's) home
because of her adulterous relationship with another man. The decree was
amended when Margaret was not in Los Angeles.
Because the decree is interlocutory, it cannot be implemented in the
Philippines. Where the judgment is merely interlocutory, the determination of
the question by the Court which rendered it did not settle and adjudge finally
the rights of the parties.
In general, a decree of divorce awarding custody of the child to one of the
spouses is respected by the Courts of other states "at the time and under the
circumstances of its rendition" but such a decree has no controlling effects in
another state as to facts and conditions occurring subsequently to the date of
the decree; and the Court of another state may, in proper proceedings, award
custody otherwise upon proof of matters subsequent to the decree which
justify the decree to the interest of the child.

In the case at bar, the circumstances have changed. Querubina is not in Los
Angeles, she is in Cagayan, Ilocos Sur, under her father's care. It is a long way
from one place to the other. Neither can Margaret prove that she can pay the
cost of passage for the minor. She is not a packet of cigarettes one can send by
mail.

Neither can she answer for Querubina's support, care and education. In
comparison, the father has shown both interest in the child and capacity to
provide for the needs of the child."