CRESENCIO LIBI v.

IAC
GR No. 70890, Sep 18, 1992
Facts: Julie Ann Gotiong who, at the time of the incident which took place and from which she died on
January 14, 1979, was an 18-year old first year commerce student of the University of San Carlos, Cebu
City; while petitioners are the parents of Wendell Libi, then a minor between 18 and 19 years of age
living with his aforesaid parents, and who also died in the same event on the same date.

For more than two (2) years before their deaths, Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were sweethearts
until December, 1978 when Julie Ann broke up her relationship with Wendell after she supposedly
found him to be sadistic and irresponsible. During the first and second weeks of January, 1979, Wendell
kept pestering Julie Ann with demands for reconciliation but the latter persisted in her refusal,
prompting the former to resort to threats against her. In order to avoid him, Julie Ann stayed in the
house of her best friend, Malou Alfonso, at the corner of Maria Cristina and Juana Osmeña Streets, Cebu
City, from January 7 to 13, 1978. On January 14, 1979, Julie Ann and Wendell died, each from a single
gunshot wound inflicted with the same firearm, a Smith and Wesson revolver licensed in the name of
Cresencio Libi (Father of Wendell Libi), which was recovered from the scene of the crime inside the
residence of private respondents at the corner of General Maxilom and D. Jakosalem streets of the same
city. Due to the absence of an eyewitness account of the circumstances surrounding the death of both
minors, their parents, who are the contending parties herein, posited their respective theories drawn
from their interpretation of circumstantial evidence, available reports, documents and evidence of
physical facts.

Petitioners averred that it was a third party who killed the two minors, as Wendell Libi was a drug
informant of Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit and Julie Ann was shot to eliminate any witness and
thereby avoid identification.

Respondents averred that it was Wendell who shot Julie Ann, then killed himself after the act.

The gun was kept in a safety box owned by the Spouses Libi, each of them holds a key to the safety
deposit box and Amelita's key is always in her bag, all of which facts were known to Wendell. They have
never been their son Wendell taking or using the gun. She admitted, however, that on that fateful night
the gun was no longer in the safety deposit box.

Issue: Whether Article 2180 of the Civil Code was correctly interpreted by respondent court to make
petitioners liable for vicarious liability.

Held: Yes. In this case, the parents had not exercised due diligence in supervising the activities of their
son. It was only at the time of Wendell's death that they allegedly discovered that he was drug
informant of CANU and that the gun used in the shooting incident was missing from the safety deposit
box. Having been grossly negligent in preventing Wendell from having access to said gun, the Libis are
primarily liable for the natural consequence of the criminal act of said minor who was living in their
company.
Parents are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising from criminal offenses
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.
 Espiritu vs. CA
G.R. No. 115640 March 15, 1995

Facts: Petitioner Reynaldo Espiritu and respondent Teresita Masauding first met in Iligan City where
Reynaldo was employed by the National Steel Corporation and Teresita was employed as a nurse in a
local hospital. Teresita left for Los Angeles, California to work as a nurse. Reynaldo was sent by his
employer, the National Steel Corporation, to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as its liaison officer and Reynaldo
and Teresita then began to maintain a common law relationship of husband and wife. On 1986, their
daughter, Rosalind Therese, was born. While they were on a brief vacation in the Philippines, Reynaldo
and Teresita got married, and upon their return to the United States, their second child, a son, this time,
and given the name Reginald Vince, was born on 1988. The relationship of the couple deteriorated until
they decided to separate. Instead of giving their marriage a second chance as allegedly pleaded by
Reynaldo, Teresita left Reynaldo and the children and went back to California. Reynaldo brought his
children home to the Philippines, but because his assignment in Pittsburgh was not yet completed, he
was sent back by his company to Pittsburgh. He had to leave his children with his sister, Guillerma Layug
and her family.

When she was a little over 5 years old, Rosalind was referred to a child psychologist, Rita Flores
Macabulos, to determine the effects of uprooting her from the Assumption College where she was
studying. Four different tests were administered. The results of the tests are quite revealing. The
responses of Rosalind about her mother were very negative causing the psychologist to delve deeper
into the child's anxiety. Among the things revealed by Rosalind was an incident where she saw her
mother hugging and kissing a "bad" man who lived in their house and worked for her father. Rosalind
refused to talk to her mother even on the telephone. She tended to be emotionally emblazed because
of constant fears that she may have to leave school and her aunt's family to go back to the United States
to live with her mother.

At about the same time, a social welfare case study was conducted for the purpose of securing the
travel clearance required before minors may go abroad. Social Welfare Officer Emma D. Estrada Lopez,
stated that the child Rosalind refused to go back to the United States and be reunited with her mother.
She felt unloved and uncared for. Rosalind was more attached to her Yaya who did everything for her
and Reginald. The child was found suffering from emotional shock caused by her mother's infidelity.

Teresita, meanwhile, decided to return to the Philippines and filed the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus against herein two petitioners to gain custody over the children, thus starting the whole
proceedings now reaching this Court.

Issue: Whether the petition for a writ of habeas corpus to gain custody over the children be granted.

Held: NO. In Unson III vs. Navarro (101 SCRA 183 [1980]), we laid down the rule that "in all
controversies regarding the custody of minors, the sole and foremost consideration is the physical,
education, social and moral welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the respective
resources and social and moral situations of the contending parents" 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 find the chosen parent unfit and award custody to the other
parent, or even to a third party as it deems fit under the circumstances.

SC dismissed the writ of habeas corpus petition by the mother and retain the custody of the children to
the father. The illicit or immoral activities of the mother had already caused emotional disturbances,
personality conflicts, and exposure to conflicting moral values against the children. The children are
now both over seven years old. Their choice of the parent with whom they prefer to stay is clear from
the record. They choose to be with their father,from all indications, Reynaldo is a fit person. There are
compelling reasons and relevant considerations not to grant custody to the mother. The children
already understand the unfortunate shortcomings of their mother and have been affected in their
emotional growth by her behavior.