REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch __, Valenzuela City

MABINI RICO MARIANO,

Petitioner,

-versus- Spec. Proc. ____

For: Petition for Custody
FLORISA A. AGRAVANTE and
VIOLETA A. AGRAVANTE,
Respondents.
x----------------------x

PETITION

COMES NOW, petitioner Mabini Rico Mariano, assisted by the

Public Attorney’s Office, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
submits this petition and avers as follows:

1) Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, married and is a resident at No.

3 T. Santiago Interior St., Canumay West, Valenzuela City.

2) Respondent Florisa A. Agravante is of legal age, Filipino, married

and with postal address at No. 7 T. Santiago Interior St., Canumay West,
Valenzuela City.

3) Respondent Violeta A. Agravante is of legal age, Filipino, married

and is a resident at No. 7 T. Santiago Interior St., Canumay West,
Valenzuela City. Petitioner and respondent Florisa A. Agravante’s minor
child, Xian Yzabelle A. Mariano is under respondent Violeta A. Agravante’s
safekeeping.

3) Petitioner and respondent Florisa A. Agravante met sometime in

January 2004 as they were co-workers at the purchasing department of
Ideal Vision’s branch in Quiapo, Manila. Petitioner was cognizant that
respondent Florisa A. Agravante already has two children from her
previous relationships, namely, Raf Saligumba and Ryv Agravante, but that
did not stall him from wooing her. Shortly after, they became sweethearts,
and on 4 January 2005 they tied the knot at the Church of Our Lady of the
Holy Rosary, which is located at G. Marcelo St., Maysan, Valenzuela City.
This is evidenced by a copy of their “Certificate of Marriage”, which is
hereto attached as Annex “A”.

4) Respondent Florisa A. Agravante entrusted her children, Raf

Saligumba and Ryv Agravante, to the care of her uncle, Martin Agravante,
who dwells in Leyte, while she and petitioner worked in Metro Manila.
 5) Sometime in 2007, petitioner and respondent Florisa A. Agravante
were permitted by the latter’s uncle Glecerio Agravante Fabular, to cause
the construction of a house in a parcel of land which he owns. The said lot
is located at No. 7 T. Santiago Interior St., Canumay West, Valenzuela
City.

6) Respondent Florisa A. Agravante got pregnant sometime in

August 2008. It was during the said period that she and petitioner decided
to allow the former’s mother, herein respondent Violeta A. Agravante, as
well as her brother, who is a spinster, Julius Agravante, to settle with
them.

7) Respondent Florisa A. Agravante gave birth to her and petitioner’s

daughter, Xian Yzabelle A. Mariano, on 10 March 2009. This is evidenced
by the latter’s “Certificate of Live Birth”, which is hereto attached as
Annex “B”.

8) Respondent Florisa A. Agravante held petitioner’s ATM card when

she and the latter were living together. She used to give him only P300.00
every week as gasoline allowance for the motorcycle which he boards in
going to and from his place of work. In order to save money, petitioner
brings provision for food at his worksite.

9) Sometime in April 2012, respondent Florisa A. Agravante

reclaimed Raf Saligumba and brought him to her and petitioner’s residence
so that he could study in Valenzuela City. Ryv Agravante, however,
remained in Leyte with his uncle, Martin Agravante. Respondent Florisa A.
Agravante started to become cranky with petitioner in 2014. She often
grumbled at petitioner as his salary was allegedly inadequate to meet the
family’s growing needs notwithstanding that he frequently reported for
work on Sunday, which should have been his rest day. In February 2014,
petitioner retrieved his ATM card from respondent Florisa A. Agravante and
took charge of budgeting household expenses and the tuition, books and
other needs of their daughter.

10) In November 2015, respondent Florisa A. Agravante asked her

permission from her superior for her to be transferred to employer’s
branch in Cebu. This was favorably granted by her superior on the
supposition that she and petitioner has a house in Cebu and that the latter
assented to the re-assignment. Thus, respondent Florisa A. Agravante left
for Cebu, leaving petitioner, their daughter, and her son, Raf Saligumba.
When respondent Florisa A. Agravante’s superior and petitioner
subsequently conferred with each other the latter apprised the former that
they do not own a house in Cebu and that the more viable areas where
respondent Violeta A. Agravante could have requested to be relocated are
Hilongos, Leyte and Dumaguete City as her father is a native of Hilongos,
Leyte whereas her mother is from Dumaguete City. Consequently, when
respondent Violeta A. Agravante’s superior went to their employer’s branch
in Cebu he demanded that she return to her previous area of assignment
in Manila, otherwise, she would be terminated. However, respondent
Violeta A. Agravante did not heed the instruction. Her superior related the
incident to petitioner who, in turn, entreated the former to just
countenance respondent Florisa A. Agravante’s continuous work in Cebu.
Ever since respondent Florisa A. Agravante went to Cebu petitioner was
left with the responsibility of rearing and taking care of their daughter.

11) Suddenly, on or about 10 March 2016, respondent Florisa A.

Agravante verbally demanded petitioner to bring their daughter to
Dumagueta City as she would like to hold her seventh birthday celebration
therein. Hence, petitioner, his daughter and mother-in-law, Violeta A.
Agravante, travelled to Dumaguete City. During that time respondent
Florisa A. Agravante was visibly lukewarm towards petitioner. Several
months afterwards, petitioner learned that respondent Florisa A. Agravante
filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage based on
psychological incapacity. Petitioner nonetheless brushed it off and
continued with his toil as he needs to provide for his daughter who is still
studying.

12) In October 2017, respondent Florisa A. Agravante resigned from

work and went back to her and petitioner’s residence in Valenzuela City.
Nonetheless, their relationship has remained sour. Their relationship has
miserably regressed such that in November 2018, respondent Florisa A.
Agravante cautioned petitioner that if he will not leave their house then
she will leave with their daughter, among others. As petitioner was
apprehensive that respondent Florisa A. Agravante might take their
daughter away from him and cut any form of communication with her he
acquiesced and rented a nearby apartment located at No. 3 T. Santiago
Interior St., Canumay West, Valenzuela City so that he can monitor his
daughter.

13) Unknown to petitioner, respondent Florisa A. Agravante was

fixing the documents she needed to fly to the United States of America to
be with her American fiancé. Her plan came to a full circle when in
December 2018 she left for the United States of America together with her
American fiancée and her two children, Raf Saligumba and Ryv Agravante.
Roughly a week before that, petitioner even saw respondent Florisa A.
Agravante’s American fiancée as he tersely stayed at their dwelling.

14) Petitioner and respondent Florisa A. Agravante’s daughter, Xian

Yzabelle A. Mariano, is presently under the custody of respondent Violeta
A. Agravante, who is the mother of respondent Florisa A. Agravante. Xian
Yzabelle A. Mariano is a grade four student at St. Louis College of
Valenzuela, as evidenced by a copy of her student identification card which
is hereto attached as Annex “C”.

15) Petitioner is dreadful that respondent Florisa A. Agravante would

eventually bring Xian Yzabelle A. Mariano to the United States of America.
He believes that he is more deserving to take custody of Xian Yzabelle A.
Mariano since from the incipiency he is the one providing for her needs,
taking care of her and sending her to school. Respondent Florisa A.
Agravante, upon the other hand, is an irresponsible parent as she had the
gall to leave her two children, Raf Saligumba and Ryv Agravante, in Leyte
with her uncle, Martin Agravante. Moreover, for more than a year she
deserted her daughter, Xian Yzabelle A. Mariano, and rarely paid the latter
a visit when she went to work in Cebu.

16) Petitioner and respondent Florisa A. Agravante are already

separated and their relationship seems irreparable. Inasmuch as
respondent Florisa A. Agravante is currently in the United States of
America parental authority should be given to the petitioner, not to
respondent Violeta A. Agravante. This is in consonance with Article 212 of
the Family Code which provides that:

In case of absence or death of either parent, the parent

present shall continue exercising parental authority. The
remarriage of the surviving parent shall not affect the
parental authority over the children, unless the court appoints
another person to be the guardian of the person or property
of the children.

17) It is clear from the aforequoted provision that only in case of the
parents’ death, absence or unsuitability may substitute parental authority
be exercised by the surviving grandparent. 1 In a plethora of cases, the
Supreme Court recognized that in choosing the parent to whom custody is
given, the welfare of the minors should always be the paramount
consideration.2 It stressed that courts take into account all relevant
circumstances that would have a bearing on the children’s well-being and
development. Aside from the material resources and the moral and social
situations of each parent, other factors may also be considered to
ascertain which one has the capability to attend to the physical,
educational, social and moral welfare of the children. 3 Among these factors
are the previous care and devotion shown by each of the parents; their
religious background, moral uprightness, home environment and time
availability; as well as the children’s emotional and educational needs. 4 In
this case, it is for the best interest of bring Xian Yzabelle A. Mariano that
her custody be given to the petitioner in view of the reasons stated in
paragraph fifteen hereof.

1
Santos, Jr. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 113054, March 16, 1995
2
Tonog v. CA, 427 Phil. 1, 7, February 7, 2002; Artadi-Bondagiy v. Bondagiy, 423 Phil.
127, 136, 138, December 7, 2001; Perez v. CA, 325 Phil. 1014, 1024, March 29, 1996;
Espiritu v. CA, 312 Phil. 431, 437; Medina v. Makabali, 137 Phil. 329, 331, March 28,
1969; Slade Perkins v. Perkins, 57 Phil. 217, 219, September 12, 1932.
3
Artadi-Bondagiy v. Bondagiy, 423 Phil. 127, 136, 138, December 7, 2001; David v.
CA, 320 Phil. 138, November 16, 1995; Espiritu v. CA; supra; Unson v. Navarro, 101
SCRA 183; Cervantes v. Fajardo, 169 SCRA 575, January 27, 1989.
4
Pablo-Gualberto v. Gualberto, G.R. No. 154994, June 28, 2005.
 18) Petitioner is indigent, as evidenced by certificates of indigency
which were issued by Barangay Canumay West, Valenzuela City and by the
Valenzuela City Social Welfare and Development Office (hereto attached as
Annexes “D” to “D-1”), as well as by his latest “Certificate of Compensation
Payment/Tax Withheld” (BIR Form No. 2316). Thus, he is exempted from
the payment of filing fees conformably with Section 6 of Republic Act No.
9046 which reads: “The clients of the PAO shall exempt from payment of
docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action in court and other
quasi-judicial bodies, as an original proceeding or on appeal.” This was
affirmed in the 30 July 2013 Resolution in A.M. No. 11-10-03-0 ( Re: Letter
dated April 18, 2011 of Chief Public Attorney Persida Rueda-Acosta
Requesting Exemption from the Payment of Sheriff’s Expenses ), where the
Supreme Court En Banc, among others, ruled that qualified clients of the
Public Attorney’s Office are exempted from the payment of filing or docket
fees.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

that:

a. the Honorable Court exempt petitioner from the payment of docket

fees and all other legal fees pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act
No. 9046 and A.M. No. 11-10-03-0; and

b. after trial on the merits, a judgment be rendered awarding full

custody over minor Xian Yzabelle A. Mariano and granting only
visitation rights to respondent Florisa A. Agravante and her relatives
within such period as may be agreed upon by the parties and as
may be approved by the Honorable Court.

Other relief and remedies just and equitable are likewise

prayed for.

Valenzuela City, 3 April 2019.

MABINI RICO MARIANO

Petitioner

Assisted by:

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

VALENZUELA DISTRICT OFFICE
1 Floor, Metropolitan Trial Court Bldg.
st

Justice Hall Compound, C.J. Santos St., Poblacion II,

Malinta, Valenzuela City
 Through:

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

Public Attorney II
Roll No. 64684
IBP OR No. 035862 dated 8/1/18 / CALMANA
MCLE Compliance No. VI - 0006876 dated 3/20/18

ATTY. DENNIS C. KUONG

Public Attorney III/Officer-in-Charge
Roll No. 56805
IBP No. 1002981 / CALMANA / 4/13/2015
MCLE Compliance VI – 0006871 / 03/20/2018

Copy furnished:
Florisa A. Agravante
No. 7 T. Santiago Interior St., Canumay West, Valenzuela City

Violeta A. Agravante
No. 7 T. Santiago Interior St., Canumay West, Valenzuela City

Explanation:

Service of the foregoing petition to the respondents was made

through registered for lack of personnel to effect personal service.

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
VALENZUELA CITY ) SS
x-------------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, MABINI RICO MARIANO, of legal age, Filipino, married and is

a resident at No. 3 T. Santiago Interior St., Canumay West, Valenzuela City
under oath state:

1. That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing petition;

3. That I have read and understood the allegations contained

therein and the same are true and correct based on my own
personal knowledge;

4. That I further certify that I have not heretofore commenced any

other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any tribunal or agency;
that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding
is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency; that if I should thereafter learn that a
similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency, I will report that fact within ten (10) days from date of
notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this 3 day of April 2019 in Valenzuela City.
rd

MABINI RICO MARIANO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of April

2019 in Valenzuela City after affiant exhibited to me his competent
evidence of identity.

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

Public Attorney II
Pursuant to R.A. 9406