GUALBERTO VS COURT OF APPEALS, GR-154994,

JUNE 28, 2005

FACTS:
Crisanto Gualberto V filed before the RTC a petition for declaration of
nullity of his marriage to Joycelyn with an ancillary prayer for custody
pendente lite of their almost 4 year old son, Rafaello, whom his wife took
away from him. Crisanto cites immorality due to alleged lesbian relations as
the compelling reason to deprive Joycelyn of custody. But the judge issued
the assailed order reversing her previous order, this time awarded the
custody of the child to the mother. Finding that the reason stated by
Crisanto not to be a compelling reason as provided in Art 213 of the Family
Code.

ISSUE: WON the custody of the minor child should be awarded to the
mother.

HELD:

Article 213 of the Family Code provided that in case of separation of

parents parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by
the court. The court shall take into account all relevant consideration and
that no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother
unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.in this case,
the sexual preference or moral laxity alone does not prove parental neglect
or incompetence. To deprive the wife of custody, the husband must clearly
establish that her moral lapses have had an adverse effect on the welfare
of the child or have distracted the offending spouse from exercising proper
parental care. The custody of the minor child was granted to the mother.

HONTIVEROS, JR. VS INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

132 SCRA 745

FACTS: Petitioner Alejandro Hontiveros, Jr. and Private respondent Brenda

M Hernandez are the parents of Margaux. On May 24, 1983 Alejandro file
an urgent ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction to prevent Brenda to take Margaux outside the country (U.S.). On
May 30, 1983 the petition was denied because the motion of Brenda for
withdrawal of habeas corpus was granted because it becomes moot and
academic when Margaux appeared before Judge Raada. The petition of
Alejandro is just an ancillary action to Habeas corpus. Hence, Alejandro
filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the respondent
Judge Cainglet for the reason of lack of factual and legal justification on
August 17, 1983.

ISSUE: Whether or not Alejandro is entitled to the custody of his child

Margaux.

HELD:Article 363 of the Civil Code in contemplation with Article 213 of the
family Code provides that in all questions on the care, custody, education
and property of children, the latter's welfare shall be paramount. No mother
shall be separated from her child under seven years of age, unless the
court finds compelling reasons for such measure. Clearly in this case, the
mother has a clear legal right to the custody of her minor child, there being
no compelling reason to the contrary. The petition is hereby denied with
cost against petitioner.

UNSON III VS NAVARRO, 101 SCRA 182

FACTS:
Petitioner and private respondent were married on April 19, 1971. They
have a child 8 years of age named Maria Teresa Unson. In a civil case,
they executed an agreement for the separation of their properties and to
live separately, this was approved by court. There is no specific provision
about the custody of the child because the husband and wife would have
their own private arrangement in that respect. However, in petition for
certiorari, Miguel wants the custody of the child and he affirms that his wife
has been living with her brother-in-law Agustin producing another child.
Considering that Agustin is Marias godfather/baptismal sponsor and that
both have left the Roman Catholic Church by embracing protestant sect
militate against custody of Teresa in favor of Edita.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Miguel is entitled to the custody of his child Maria
Teresa.

HELD:
Article 363 of the Civil Code provides that in all questions on the care,
custody, education and property of children, the latter's welfare shall be
paramount. Further, Article 213 of FC provides that in case of separation of
parents, parental authority shall be exercised by parent designated by court
and that the Court shall take into account all relevant considerations
especially the choice of child over 7 years of age unless the parent chosen
is unfit. With this premise in view, the Court finds no difficulty in this case in
seeing that it is in the best interest of the child Teresa to be freed from the
obviously unwholesome, and immoral influence, that private respondent
has placed herself, might create in the moral and social outlook of Teresa
who is now in her formative and most impressionable stage in her life. The
Court finds no alternative than to grant private respondent no more than
visitorial rights over the child.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS GENOSA

GR-13591, JANUARY 15, 2004

FACTS:
The wife had suffered maltreatment from her husband for over eight years.
She was 8 months pregnant when, one evening, her husband came home
drunk and started to batter her. The wife, thinking of all the suffering that
her husband had been inflicting on her, and he might really kill her and her
unborn child, shot her husband who was by then asleep on the bed. She
was tried and convicted for parricide. On appeal, she alleged "battered
woman syndrome" as a form of self-defense.

ISSUE: May "battered woman syndrome" be regarded as a form of selfdefense to exempt the accused from criminal liability?

HELD:
By the time the wife killed her husband, there was no longer any
aggression on his part to justify a claim of self-defense. However, the Court
also found that the cycle of abuse inflicted by the husband resulted in posttraumatic stress disorder on the part of the wife, which lessened her
freedom of action, intelligence, and intent, resulting in a "psychological
paralysis". Also, the battering she received at his hands before she killed
him produced passion and obfuscation which overcame her reason. These
were appreciated by the Court as mitigating circumstances. Also, the Court
found that there was no treachery. The wife's conviction was affirmed, but
considering the mitigating circumstances, her sentence was reduced. Since
she had already served more than the minimum sentence, the Court said
that she might be considered for parole.

ESPIRITU VS CA, GR-115640, MARCH 15, 1995

FACTS:
Reynaldo Espiritu and Teresita Masauding began to maintain a common
law relationship of husband while in US. They have a children named
Rosalind and Reginald. After a year, they went back to the Philippines for
a brief vacation when they also got married. In 1990, they decided to
separate. Reynaldo pleaded for second chance but instead of Teresita
granting it, she left Reynaldo and the children and went back to California.
Reynaldo brought the children in the Philippines and left them with his
sister. When Teresita returned in the Philippines sometime in 1992, he
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Reynaldo and his sister
to gain custody of the children.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the custody of the 2 children should be awarded to the
mother.

HELD:
In cases of care, custody, education and property of children, the latters
welfare shall be the paramount concern and that even a child under 7 years
of age may be ordered to be separated from the mother for compelling
reasons. At the time the judgment was rendered, the 2 children were both
over 7 years of age. The choice of the child to whom she preferred to stay
must be considered. It is evident in the records submitted that Rosalind
chose to stay with his father/aunt. The mothers conviction for the crime of
bigamy and her illicit relationship had already caused emotional
disturbances and personality conflicts at least with the daughter. Hence,
petition was granted. Custody of the minors was reinstated to their father.