SANTOS v CA (1995) 242 SCRA 407

Leouel and Julia had placed their child into the care of the latters parents ever since the child was born. The grandparents were the ones who provided support for the child, since Leouel cannot afford to do so. Julia then left for the States to work but louelle does not know where. The grandparents claim that Julia has been sending financial support to her son. On September 1990, Leouel abducted the child from his grandparents. The grandparents then filed for custody of the boy, which the trial court granted. Leouel appealed, stating that the respondents have failed to show the he is unfit to be the father and that the substitute parental authority granted to the boys grandparents was inappropriate. The respondents claim that they are financially well-off to take care of the son, while Leouel is not. They can provide the child with an airconditioned room since he is asthmatic. Also, Julia has entrusted the boy to them. Leouels use of trickery to abduct the child also is a sign of his unfitness. They likewise claim that they are in the best position to take care of the child, and this should be the primary consideration of the court.

Ramon Villar, a married man, had three children with his secretary Daisie David. Ramon recognized the children as his. Ramon refused to return Christopher then 6 years old and his youngest child after a trip to Boracay. He also enrolled him in a school. Daisy filed a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of Christopher. HELD: Christopher, as an illegitimate child, is under the parental authority of his mother. That the husband can provide the needs of the son better is not an argument against the mothers custody. The fact that Ramon recognized the child may be a ground for him to give support but not for giving him custody of the child. PALISOC v BRILLANTES (1971) 41 SCRA 548 While inside the laboratory room of Manila Technological Institute, Dominador Palisoc and Virgilio Daffon engaged in a brawl which killed the former. Parents of Dominador claims damages from the school, the teacher and Daffon (who is already of legal age). ISSUE: WON the school, its administrators, the teacher and Daffon are liable for damages HELD: President and instructor are jointly and severally liable since incident could have been prevented if they gave proper supervision. It is not necessary that the student board in the school for Art 2180 to apply. As long as students are in their custody, they stand in loco parentis and must exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. AMADORA v CA (1988) 160 SCRA 315 Just before their high school graduation, Pablito Daffon shot Alfredo Amadora which resulted to his death. It was proven that they were only at the school auditorium to finish their project in Physics. Amadoras parents claim for damages which RTC and CA dismissed. ISSUE: Who may be held liable for the damages? HELD: 1) Not the school nor the administrators: Art 2180 only holds school administrators of trade and art school liable, but not academic institutions. 2) Not the teacher in charge because it was not show that he was not required to be there at the time of the incident. 3) Not the school prefect because it was not proven that the gun used by Daffon was the same gun he had confiscated and did not report to authorities. However, it was established that Art 2180 applies to all schools, academic or non-academic. In academic schools, teacher in charge is liable for student's misconduct. In non-academic schools, the head is liable. Custody is not coterminous with semester. As long as student is under the control and influence of school and within its premises in pursuance of legitimate right, obligation or privilege, he is considered under school custody. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PALISOC AND AMADORA PALISOC during school hours, school liable if impleaded AMADORA not during classhours, what mattered was the purpose

ISSUE: WON Leouel should be awarded proper custody HELD: Yes. The father, Leouel was not shown to be an unfit parent. The fact that he kidnapped his son from the latters maternal grandparents does not render him unfit. Also, disqualifying him as custodian because of the nature of his work (soldier) would mean depriving all soldiers of their childs company. Only in cases of death, absence or unsuitability of parents may substitute parental authority be exercised by the surviving grandparents. 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." CANG v CLAVANO (1998) 296 SCRA 128 Spouses Herbert Cang and Anna Marie Clavano (employee at the Philippine Consulate in LA) were legally separated because the husbands extramarital affairs. Herbert became naturalized US citizen and secured a divorce decree there. Clavanos brother (Ronald Clavano, a wealthy businessman) and his wife Maria Clara (a flight stewardess) wanted to adopt the three children (Keith, Charmaine and Joseph Anthony) of the spouses Cang and Clavano. The 14 yo son signed the petition of adoption along with Clavano. The mother justified the adoption with the following statements: o The brother had been her in taking care of the children o She will be going to the US and the children would hamper her job-seeking venture abroad o Husband had long forfeited his parental rights Herbert immediately returned home upon learning about the adoption proceeding, which he opposes. RTC and CA granted the decree of adoption ISSUE: WON the consent of the father to the adoption must be sought, given that he expresses desire to retain parental authority and that he did not abandon his children HELD: The adoption may not be granted. Cangs consent as the father is necessary. Petitioners conduct did not manifest relinquishment of parental duties. Despite the fact that Cang abandoned his children, it was proven that he continued to send support for the family from the US. It was mere physical estrangement that existed. Cang did not manifest a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims over his children as to constitute abandonment. DAVID v CA (1995) 250 SCRA 82

ST. MARYS ACADEMY v CARPITANOS (2002) 376 SCRA 473 On 13 to 20 February 1995, St. Marys Academy Dipolog conducted enrolment drive for the school year 1995-1996. This included visiting schools where prospective enrollees are. Among the volunteer students are Sherwin Carpitanos and James Daniel II. On one day of the campaign, James Daniel II who was then 15 took the wheel from the grandson of Vivencio Villanueva, the owner of the Mitsubishi jeep, and by reckless driving caused the overturning of the said vehicle which caused injuries to its passengers and led to the death of Sherwin. Sherwins parents sued James Daniel II and his parents, Vivencio Villanueva, and the school. JD II and Villanueva were absolved while SMA was held to pay primary liability while James Daniel Sr. and Guada Daniel were to pay subsidiarily.

SMA appealed and on 29 February 2000, got reduced damages to pay. They moved to reconsider on the same date, but got denied on 22 May 2000. Hence they filed this appeal.

ISSUE: WON SMA is liable under Art 218 and 219 FC HELD: NO. Even if under the aforementioned articles, the school, its administrators and teachers, have special parental authority over minor children (Art 218) and that they will be solidarily liable for any damages (Art 219), it was erroneously established that their alleged negligence of not sending a teacher to serve as guardian was the proximate cause of the accident that caused the death of Sherwin. Rather, it was the reckless driving of James II and the mechanical failure of the jeep when its steering wheel guide got detached that caused the jeep to lose control and turn turtle, injuring its passengers and causing the death of herein petitioners minor child. The ones liable should be the parents of James Daniel II (JD II being in their care and custody) and Vivencio Villanueva for his negligence regarding the condition of his jeep and his grandsons allowing of James to drive the said vehicle. VANCIL v BELMES (2001) 358 SCRA 707 Reeder Vancil died as a US Navy Serviceman in 1986. He is survived by his common-law wife Helen Belmes (herein respondent) and two minor children Valerie and Vincent. The kids were 6 and 2 years old respectively in 1987. Bonifacia, Reeders mother and a naturalized American citizen, is the petitioner in this case. She seeks guardianship over the persons and properties of the two minors. RTC appointed her as legal and judicial in 1987. Helen appealed to the in 1988 CA and won. CA said that parents are the ipso facto guardian of their minor children without the need of the court appointment. The grandmother did not present any reason to contest Helens fitness to hold parental authority. Ten years later or in 1998, Bonifacia brought the case to SC saying that Helen is morally unfit as guardian because her live-in partner raped Valerie several times and that her status as an expatriate is not a statutory requirement for guardianship. ISSUE: WON the grandmother may be granted guardianship of the two children instead of the mother. HELD: OF COURSE NOT. As the Court held in Santos, Sr. v CA, parents have the preferential right to the custody of their children especially if there is continuous parental authority. Grandparents are only resorted to in case the parent is absent, dead or proved to be unsuitable. Bonifacia did not present convincing evidence showing that Helen is unfit to be Vincents guardian (Valerie already turned 18 by 1998, ergo guardianship for her is moot). Also her expatriate status disqualifies as a substitute guardian because 1) she resides in the US (plus the fact that her libel case here in the Philippines would give her second thoughts on coming back) and 2) her old age, she will merely delegate guardianship duties to someone else who may not qualify as a guardian. Besides, Vincent only has 2 years before emancipation. CA DECISION AFFIRMED. CABANAS v PILAPIL (1974) 58 SCRA 94 - Florentino Pilapil had a child (Millian Pilipil) with the plaintiff, Melchora Cabanas, married to another man. - The deceased insured himself assigning the child as the beneficiary and his brother, respondent herein, Francisco Pilapil as the trustee during her minority. Upon his deaths, the proceeds were given to the brother. - Mother prays for appointment as the administrator in her capacity as the natural parent. Uncle resists invoking the terms of the insurance policy. ISSUE: Who between the mother and the uncle has the right to administer the childs property? HELD: The mother. Art 320 and 321 of CC says that the father, in his absence, the mother is the legal administrator of the property of the child. There is no ambiguity in the law, so apply it if the facts are not disputed. LIBI v IAC (1992) 214 SCRA 816

Julie broke up with Wendell because he was sadistic and irresponsible. Wendell attempts to reconcile with her but to no avail. So he resorts to threatening Julie who in turn, sought the help of her best friend Malou Alfonso in whose house she stayed to avoid her ex-bf. Julie and Wendell died from a single gunshot inflicted by a revolver licensed in the name of Wendells father, Cresencio Libi (the petitioner). No eyewitness account so the parents of the two parties presented their own theories. GOTIONG VERSION OF THE STORY: Wendell killed their daughter, the committed suicide. LIBI VERSION OF THE STORY: Wendell was an informer of the Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), so an unknown and antagonized third party killed him and included Julie to eliminate any witnesses. The Gotiongs filed a civil case against the Libis to recover damages for their daughters death

ISSUE: WON the parents of the Wendell are liable for the damages HELD: Yes. Parents are primary liable for damages caused by minor children from quasi-delicts and criminal offenses except when they exercised due diligence. In this case, parents did not exercise due diligence since the son gained access to the key of the safety deposit box where gun was (mother just kept it in her bag, to the knowledge of the son) and their ignorance to the nature of his job as evidence by the picture of him with a gun given to Julie Ann. Also, the Libis theory is untenable because they did not file a case against the alleged malefactor of their son, there were only two bullets used and no paraffin test was conducted because of the hasty interment. LINDAIN v CA (1992) 212 SCRA 725 Dolores Luluquisin, acting as a guardian of her minor children, sold a land registered in the name of her children to the private respondents Apolonia Valiente and Federico Ila for P2000. They assert that the value can be validly sold without written court approval because the property was less than P2000. Even if the sale was invalid, the petitioners right to redeem has already prescribed because it is only allowed until four years after reaching age of majority ISSUE: WON judicial approval was necessary for the sale of minors property by the mother HELD: Yes. Sale of minor children's property executed by the mother is void. Judicial approval is necessary because the powers and duties as legal administrator are only powers of possession and management; no power to mortgage, encumber or dispose. Also, the action for reconveyance of immovable prescribe only after 30 years. PEOPLE v SILVANO (1999) 309 SCRA 362

It is not for the humans to ravish what they produced. Sheryl Silvano, a beautiful and tall mestiza, 16 yo was raped by her father as a punishment for her coming home late. She has been raped since she was 13 yo old. And only told her mother and grandmother about it when she was being compelled to return to their home (she left their home and stayed at her lolas house). Father submits many arguments like: he couldnt have possibly raped the child because the room was cramped, that his wife just wants to severe marital ties with him, that if he did rape her it would have woke up her two brothers who are sleeping in the same room. He was merely teaching her sex education.

ISSUE: WON raping is justified form of punishment HELD: No! Sex with one's own child is per se abhorrent and can never be justified as a form of parental punishment. It is detrimental to the childs moral development and well-being. His arguments are likewise untenable because any noise that they would have produced is disguised as a form of parental reproach. DEATH ROLL! CHUA v CABANGBANG (1969) 27 SCRA 791 CFI dismisses Pacitas claim for her daughter. She was a prostitute who had three children by three men whom she lived with successively (Chua Ben, Sy Sia Lay and Victor Tan Villareal).

Julie Ann Gotiong (18 yo, 1st year Commerce student at University of San Carlos, Cebu) and Wendell Libi (18-19) were sweethearts.

Betty Chua, 11 yo at the time of the trial, was one of her children and is in the custody of Flora Cabangbang. Cabangbang and Chua had different stories as to how Bettys custody was acquired. FLORA: she found the child wrapped in a bundle in their front door PACITA: Villareal gave Betty to Flora as a payment for his debts. She now claims custody of her child after five years allegedly because she did not know where to look for the child.

ISSUE: WON Pacita may regain her child HELD: No. There was constructive abandonment and hence she may be deprived of parental authority. She only wants the child back so her biological fathers support would resume (take note that this is still uncertain) and she was even willing to withdraw her suit if the Cabangbangs would pay her 150 K. She attests no genuine motherly longing. In the best interest of the child, Flora Cabangbang should retain custody. COMPARED WITH CELIS v CAFUIR, Celis did not lose communication with her child during the time that Cafuir had custody of her child. ABIERA v ORIN (1907) 8 Phil 193

SILVA v CA & GONZALES (1997) 275 SCRA 60 Carlitos Silva (a married businessman) cohabited with Suzanne Gonzales (an actress) and begot two children, Ramon Carlos and Rica Natalia Because the wife resumed her acting career (though wife contends that she did not stop) they separated Mother refuses to allow father the childrens company on weekends and says that he is into gambling and womanizing which she fears might affect the values of the children RTC gave visitation rights to the father Mother remarries a Dutch national and goes to Holland with kids. CA denies custodial rights to father and asks for self-sacrifice, saying that rotational custody is harmful to the children, especially if they see that the father has another family. If he really loves his children, he will give them what is best for them, even if it means he will not see them. Besides, illegitimate children should be under the parental authority of the mother. ISSUE: WON the father may be deprived of visitation rights HELD: No. Provisions on inherent and natural right is regardless of legitimacy. Besides, Art 49 FC may be applied here (visitation rights of void ab initio marriages). The consequences are merely the product of the unfounded imagination of the judge. Besides, the RTC gave safeguards to the visitation rights: cannot take out children without the mothers consent.

Parents
Miguel Vicenta Mario Petra Juan

Sebastia n
Vicenta, Mario and Petra were brothers and sisters. Vicenta was married to Miguel; Petra to Juan. When Vicenta died, Miguel, Mario and Juan entered into an agreement covering the disposition of the properties left by Vicenta; Mario and Juan were representing their children, who are the heirs of Vicenta. Sebastian, son of Petra and Juan filed a complaint as special administrator of his deceased father, alleging that Miguel has not complied with the said contract/agreement. ISSUE: WON Sebastian, being the son of the deceased Juan Abiera has the right to ask for the compliance with the said obligation HELD: No. The true interested parties in the obligation contracted by Miguel Orin are the children of Juan Abiera, and not the latter, for the simple reason that the obligation was executed in their favor and not in favor of said Abiera. This being the fact, it is evident that the plaintiff in his office as administrator of the deceased Juan Abiera has no right to ask for the compliance with the said obligation. As such administrator, he has only the right to institute such actions as correspond and pertain to the estate which he is administering, and no other action dealing with contracts and obligations contracted in favor of 3rd persons or others from whom he does not derive such right, can be brought as such administrator. The right of Juan Abiera to represent his children as father or guardian of the same, and that he has not transferred nor could he transfer to the administrator of his estate such right from the mere fact that he was such administrator. The said right attached to parental authority or guardianship was extinguished when Juan Abiera died. CORTES v CASTILLO (1921) 41 Phil 466

Maria Cortes Alejandro Herrera Acardio and Bernardo Maria committed adultery and was convicted but Alejandro pardoned her and they reconciled. However, Maria again committed adultery so Alejandro filed annulment of their wedding and brought his children to his mother. During the pendency of the annulment proceeding, Alejandro died as a policeman.

ISSUE: WON Maria Cortes may have custody of her children? HELD: No. she had insufficient means to support the children and the fact that she had been found guilty of adultery, she has corrupt moral values harmful to the welfare of the minors. Grandmother retains custody.