Article 225

Chapter 4. Effect of Parental Authority Uponthe Property of the Children
Art. 225. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of the unemancipated common child without the necessity of a court appointment. In case of disagreement, the father’s decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary.

Where the market value of the property or the annual income of the child exceeds P50,000, the parent concerned shall be required to furnish a bond in such amount as the court may determine, but not less than ten per centum (10%) of the value of the property or annual income, to guarantee the performance of the obligations prescribed for general guardians.

A verified petition for approval of the bond shall be filed in the proper court of the place where the child resides, or, if the child resides in a foreign country, in the proper court of the place where the property or any part thereof is situated.

The petition shall be docketed as a summary special proceeding in which all incidents and issues regarding the performance of the obligations referred to in the second paragraph of this Article shall be heard and resolved.

The ordinary rules on guardianship shall be merely suppletory except when the child is under substitute parental authority, or the guardian is a stranger, or a parent has remarried, in which case the ordinary rules on guardianship shall apply. (320a)

Article 226

By: Jay R. Bautista

The property of the unemancipated child earned or acquired with his work or industry or by onerous or gratuitous title shall belong to the child in ownership and shall be devoted exclusively to the latter’s support and education, unless the title or transfer provides otherwise. The right of the parents over the fruits and income of the child’s property shall be limited primarily to the child’s support and secondarily to the collective daily needs of the family. (321a, 323a)

EFFECT OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY UPON THE PROPERTY OF THE CHILDREN

OWNERSHIP OF CHILD’S PROPERTY

The child himself owns the property acquired by him or her through his or her work or industry and shall be primarily used for his own welfare, support and education. However, being a part of a family which the state seeks to strengthen, if the child’s property is more than sufficient to maintain the said child, the said properties may be used to defray the collective daily needs of the family.

It must likewise be emphasized that a child is obliged to support his or her parents in accordance with Article 195 of the Family Code and from his or her separate property can be taken the support to be given to the parents if the same needs it and if the child can afford it.

Article 227

By Francis Caparas

Art. 227. If the parents entrust the management or administration of any of their properties to an unemancipated child, the net proceeds of such property shall belong to the owner. The child shall be given a reasonable monthly allowance in an amount not less than that which the owner would have paid if the administrator were a stranger, unless the owner, grants the entire proceeds to the child. In any case, the proceeds thus give in whole or in part shall not be charged to the child’s legitime. (322a)

Article 209

NATURAL RIGHT & PARENTAL AUTHORITY

Case Digest

HERBERT CANG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses RONALD V. CLAVANO and MARIA CLARA CLAVANO, respondents.

The natural affection between parents and the offspring has always been recognized recognized as an inherent NATURAL RIGHT. The government is formed for its protection

PARENTS’ PRIMARY FUNCTION – preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.

PARENTAL AUTHORITY – the right and duty of parents under the law of nature as well as the common law and the statutes of many states to protect their children.

**it should be so supreme that whatever would unduly impair it should be forgone by the child for his ultimate good.

Article 210

ARTICLE 210

AtoyBMonteza

Article 210. Parental authority and responsibility may not be renounced or transferred except in the cases authorized by the law.

Renunciation and transfer of parental authority. The upbringing of the children is a sacred duty entrusted to parents. Therefore it cannot be simply renounced or transferred except in the cases authorized by law.

Parental authority and responsibility are inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced except in case authorized by law. The right attached to parental authority, being purely personal, the law allows a waiver of parental authority only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a children’s home or an orphan institute.

When a parent entrusts the custody of a minor to another such as a friend or a godfather, even in a document, it is merely temporary custody and it does not constitute renunciation of parental authority.

Parental authority can only be terminated in accordance with legal grounds under Articles 228- 232.

SAGALA-ESLAO VS CA

AtoyBMonteza

FACTS:

When Maria Paz’s husband Reynaldo Eslao died, she entrusted custody of her youngest child Angelica to her grieving mother-in-law. She then returned to her mother’s house with Leslie. Years later, Maria Paz got married to a Japanese-American and live with him in the US.  After this she returned to the Philippines to be reunited with her children and bring them to the US. She then informed Teresita about her desire to take custody of Angelica her new husband’s willingness to adopt her children. Teresita refused, and accused  Maria of having abandoned Angelica when she was 10 days old. Maria instituted an action against Teresita over the return of the custody of Angelica to her. After the trial on the merits, the trial court granted the petition. CA affirmed in the full decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Teresita Sagala-Eslao should  be given the custody of the child?

RULING:

No.  The right of parents to the custody of their minor children is one of the natural rights incident to parenthood, a right supported by law and sound public policy. The right is an inherent one, which is not created by the state or decisions of the courts, but derives from the nature of the parental relationship.

Thus, when Maria entrusted the custody of Angelica to Teresita, what she gave to the latter was merely temporary custody and it did not constitute abandonment or renunciation of parental authority. The law allows a waiver of parental authority only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a children’s home or an orphan institution.

 

Article 211

ARTICLE 211

By Edwin C Nesortado

The father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their common children. In case of disagreement, the father’s decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary.

Children shall always observe respect and reverence towards their parents and are obliged to obey them as long as the children are under parental authority. (172, Presidential Decree No. 603)

JOINT PARENTAL AUTHORITY

The parents are equally bound to ensure the wholesome upbringing of the children. This precept is in accordance with the natural order of life . A father and a mother are not expected to have a compartmentalized concern over their children or in their parental love be split up to serve different purposes.

PREFERENTIAL CHOICE OF THE FATHER

Both the father and the mother should exercise joint parental authority over their common children. However, in case of conflict between the parents, the father’s decision prevails as long as it is for the best interest of their children.

This preferential paternal right however does not mean that the mother’s decision is not for their children’s best interest. If both of the parent’s decision has merit and to further avoid such of becoming void to the detriment of their children, the decision of the father as the head of the family is given preference.

The law is designed to provide a mechanism by which the conflicts within the family will be resolved within the family. If the decision of the father is in question where the mother and their children wanted to change it, the court has the authority to alter such decision.

DUTIES OF CHILDREN

This article provides that the children shall always observe respect and reverence toward their parents and are obliged to obey them as long as the children are under parental authority. Article 357 of the 1950 Civil Code still effectively provides that every child shall:

1.Obey and honor their parents or guardians;

2.Respect their grandparents, old relatives and other persons holding substitute parental authority;

3. Exert their utmost for their education and training;

4.Cooperate with the family in all matters that make for the good of the same.

5.Other responsibilities of the children are enumerated under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, P.D. No.603 (Article 4)as amended.

CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 116773. January 16, 1997]

TERESITA SAGALA-ESLAO, petitioner, 

1. vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA PAZ CORDERO-OUYE, respondents.

TORRES, JR., J.:

FACTS:

Maria Paz entrusted custody of her youngest child Angelica to her grieving mother-in-law when her husband Reynaldo Eslao died. She then returned to her mother’s house with Leslie. Years later, Maria Paz got married to a Japanese-American and live with him in the US.  After this she returned to the Philippines to be reunited with her children and bring them to the US. She then informed Teresita about her desire to take custody of Angelica her new husband’s willingness to adopt her children. Teresita refused, and accused  Maria of having abandoned Angelica when she was 10 days old. Maria instituted an action against Teresita over the return of the custody of Angelica to her. After the trial on the merits, the trial court granted the petition. CA affirmed in the full decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Teresita Sagala-Eslao has the right over the custody of Angelica

RULING:

No.  The right of parents to the custody of their minor children is one of the natural rights incident to parenthood, a right supported by law and sound public policy. The right is an inherent one, which is not created by the state or decisions of the courts, but derives from the nature of the parental relationship.

Thus, when Maria entrusted the custody of Angelica to Teresita, what she gave to her mother-in-law  was merely temporary custody and it did not constitute abandonment or renunciation of parental authority. The law allows a waiver of parental authority only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a children’s home or an orphan institution.

QUESTION:

What is the only way to alter the father’s decision is case the mother and their children do not conform with the same?

Answer:

The latter may bring the said issue to the court of justice.

Article 212

by: Jomely Rose N. Ortiola

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.

• First Sentence – death of either parent
• Second Sentence – remarriage of parent
• Either of the two will not terminate nor affect the parental authority over children.
• In case of remarriage, if clearly shown that surviving parent cannot undertake the necessary devotion, care, loyalty and concern toward the children,  the court may appoint another person to be the guardian of the person or property of the children.

Article 213

By Joseph C. Palacol

ARTICLE 213  In the case of separtation of parents, Parental authority shall be exercised by the parts deignated by the Court. The court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over seven years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit.(n)

No Child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise

SEPARATION Parental authority shall be given to any of the parents who may be designated by the Court in case the parents have separated from each other. Although the court may designate the exercise of parental authority on the part of one parent, this designation does not mean that the parental authority of the other parent is necessarily terminated or suspended. Parental authority shall be terminated only if the Court so decrees on the basis of the causes for termination or suspension of such authority provided by law.

CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN Parents are never deprived of the custody and care of children except for cause. This is a universal rule of all systems of law, as beneficient to the child as it is just as it is just to the parent. Indeed, it might well be said to belong to the realm of natural justice.

In custody cases, the rights of the parents are not in issue. They have overridden by singular interest of the child which the parents in turn have submerge by their own acts, in a ratio directly proportional to their responsibility for the families division. The chileds best interest which constitutes the “cardinal principle” and the “paramount consideration” in custody cases, is not principle to be placed upon the balance of scales but rather is the measure by which all else is to be decided. No factor will be given weight that is not homogenous with the cardinal principle. Hence, custody cases where the spouses are separated from each other, the courts shall take into account all relevant considerations especially the choice of the child over seven years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit.

CUSTODY HEARINGS. The procedure of custody cases is not governed by the rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors.

A Habeas corpus case can be availed of to secure the custody of a child. In the case the parents are separated from each other. However it can be used also by the other parents against third persons. Thus, the writ of habeas corpus is also a proper remedy to enable parents to regain custody of a minor daughter even though the latter be in the custody of third person of her free will because the parents were compelling her to marry a man against her will.

The question of identity is relevant and material baheas corpus proceedings, subject to the usual presumptions including those as identity of the person.

In the child custody hearings, equity may be invoked for the best interest of the child.

PARENTAL PREFERENCE RULE. The natural parents, who are good character and who can responsibly provide for the child, are ordinarily entitled to the custody as against all person. The right of custody accord to the parents spring from the exercise of parental authority. Accordingly such parents are entitled to the custody of their children as against foster or prospective adoptive parents. Such entitlement applies also as against each other relatives of the child, including grandparents or as against an agency or institution.

MATERNAL PREFERENCE. It is universally recognized that the mother s the natural custodian of her young. The proper application of the maternal preferences rule neither denies nor abridges the equality of rights of the father because, as previously stated, the rights of the parents are not the principal issues in a custody case but rather the best interest of the children.

The law favors the mother if she is a fit and proper person to have custody of her children sp that they may not only receive her attention. Care, supervision and kindly advice, but also may have advantage and benefit of a mother’s love and devotion for which there is no substitute. The preferences favoring the mother over the father has been held that the natural inclination to give the mother the custody over her children of tender years is a recognition that the mother is God’s own onstitution for the rearing and upbringing of the child, abd puts a premium on child culture in the hands of an expert.

EXEPTION TO MATENAL PREFERENCES- Maternal preferences is not an absolute rule. It is intended to serve only the function as a “tie-breaker” in those rare instances when parental qualities are so equally balanced between litigants that resort to the preference is necessary.

CUSTODY GRANTS TO OTHERS. Custody may even be awareded to persons who are strangers to the family if such award would best serve the paramount interest of the child.

NO FINALITY OF CUSTODY JUDGEMENT – It must be pointed out however that decisions of the courts, even the supreme court on the custody of minor children are always open to adjustments as the circumstances relevant to the mother may demand in the light ot the inflexible criterion, namely the paramount interest of the children.

Article 214

 By Ed Pangilinan

In case of death, the absence or unsuitability of the parents, substitute and parental authority shall be exercised by the surviving grandparent. In case several survive, the one designated by the court taking into account the same consideration mentioned in the preceding article, shall exercise the authority.

SUBSTITUTE PARENTAL AUTHORITY OF GRANDPARENTS. In the absence or incapacity of the parents, the grandparents are the most natural , suitable and logical persons to exercise parental authority . Hence, grandparents have the legal preference in the matter of substitute parental authority.

It is a biological fact that grandparents are bound to their grandchildren by the unbreakable link of heredity. It is common human experience that the concern and interest of grandchildren  far exceed anything explicable in purely biological terms.

Article 215

By: Kristine C. Ramos

Art. 215. No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other. (315a)

Discussion:

The reason for the filial privilege is to foster family unity and tranquility while the exception to this rule is when the testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other which is based on the recognition that once a crime is committed against the descendant or by one parent against the other, the sanctity and tranquility of the family as well as of the marriage has already been destroyed. Thus, the very reason for the filial privilege has already been ravaged.