This is another case of battle for custody of a minor child. Coming into play here is the nature of parental authority or the “mass of rights and obligations which the law grants to parents for the purpose of the children’s physical development, as well as the cultivation of their intellect and the education of their heart and senses.” The issue in this case is whether said authority can be transferred or renounced; and when it can be waived under the law. This is the case between Marta, a widow with 12 children and Carla, her daughter-in-law.
Carla got married to Ernie, one of Marta’s sons. After their marriage they decided to stay with Marta who had enough financial means to support them and the children they may beget, because she maintains a profitable store, rents out rooms in her house and receives substantial pension for the death of her husband.
During their marriage, Carla and Ernie begot their two daughters: Girlie and Merlie. The couple entrusted the custody of Girlie to Carla’s mother in the province while Merlie stayed with them at Marita’s house in Manila.
After six years of marriage however, Ernie died. At the time of his death, Girlie was only four years old while Merlie was three years. Carla thus decided to go back to the province with her mother along with her younger daughter Merlie. Marta however prevailed upon Carla to entrust custody of Merlie to her, reasoning out that her son Ernie just died and to assuage her grief, she needed the company of the child to at least compensate for the loss of her late son. So Carla left Merlie with Marta and returned to her mother’s house in the province where she stayed with Girlie.
Subsequently, Carla met Dr. William Okada, a Japanese-American orthodontist practicing in America through her Auntie who introduced her to him. Their acquaintance blossomed into a meaningful relationship until they decided to get married just two years after the death of Ernie. Then about ten months thereafter, Carla migrated to the USA to join her new husband. She became a trainee in a bank while Dr. William continue to progress in his profession, maintaining a clinic and earning $5,000 a month and owning three cars.
So later on Carla returned to the Philippines to be reunited with her children and bring them to the US. She informed Marta about her desire to take custody of Merlie because her present husband was willing to adopt both Girlie and Merlie and provide for their education and support. Marta however refused, contending that Carla already abandoned and entrusted custody of Merlie to her.
Because of Marta’s refusal, Carla filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the recovery of Merlie’s custody. After trial, the lower court granted her petition and ordered Marta or anyone acting in her behalf to immediately transfer custody of Merlie to Carla, her natural mother. This ruling was affirmed in its entirety by the Court of Appeals.
So Marta went to the Supreme Court seeking the reversal of the CA decision. She contended that Carla had already abandoned Merlie to her care and custody and she is fit and deserving to take care of the child having managed to raise 12 children of her own, by her own self and has the financial means to take care of and carry out her plans for Merlie.
But the SC still decided in favor of Carla. The SC ruled that being the natural mother of Merlie, Carla is the natural guardian duty bound and entitled to keep custody and company of her child. When she entrusted custody of Merlie to Marta her mother-in-law, what is given is merely temporary custody and it does not constitute a waiver or renunciation of parental authority. The right attached to parental authority is purely personal, so the law allows a waiver only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a children’s home or an orphanage, which does not appear in this case. Here Carla only gave Marta temporary custody of her minor child Merlie and it did not constitute abandonment or renunciation of parental authority. Parental authority is not a power but a task; it is not a complex of rights but a sum of duties; it is not a sovereignty, but a sacred trust for the welfare of the child.
The right of parents to the custody of their minor children is one of the natural rights of parenthood, a right supported by law and sound public policy. The right is an inherent one, which is not created by the estate or decisions of the courts, but arises from the nature of the parent-child relationship (Sagala-Eslao vs. Court of Appeals and Cordero-Ouye. G.R. 116773, January 16, 1997)
* * *
Email: attyjosesison@gmail.com