Lacson V Lacson

Lacson v. Lacson 24 SCRA 837 (?
Full Text: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1968/aug1968/gr_l-23482_1968.html
Facts: Alfonso Lacson and Carmen San Jose-Lacson were married on February 14, 1953 . To them were
born four children, all alive and minors. On January 9, 1963 the Carmen left the conjugal home in Santa
Clara Subdivision, Bacolod City, and commenced to reside in Manila. She filed on March 12, 1963 a
complaint before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila (JDRC) for custody of all their
children as well as support for them and herself.
However, the spouses, succeeded in reaching an amicable settlement respecting custody of the children,
support, and separation of property. On April 27, 1963 they filed a joint petition (compromised
agreement) dated April 21, 1963 before CFI which contains the following:
4. Petitioners have mutually agreed upon the dissolution of their conjugal partnership subject to
judicial approval as required by Article 191 of the Civil Code of the Philippines — the particular
terms and conditions of their mutual agreement being as follows:
(a) There will be separation of property…
(b) Hereafter, each of them shall own, dispose of, possess, administer and enjoy such separate estate as
they may acquire without the consent of the other and all earnings from any profession, business or
industry as may be derived by each petitioner shall belong to that petitioner exclusively.
(c) The custody of the two elder children named Enrique and Maria Teresa shall be awarded to petitioner
Alfonso Lacson and the custody of the younger children named Gerrard and Ramon shall be awarded to
petitioner Carmen San Jose-Lacson.
(d) Petitioner Alfonso Lacson shall pay petitioner Carmen San Jose-Lacson a monthly allowance of P300.00
for the support of the children in her custody.
(e) Each petitioner shall have reciprocal rights of visitation of the children in the custody of the other at
their respective residences and, during the summer months, the two children in the custody of each
petitioner shall be given to the other except that, for this year's summer months, all four children shall be
delivered to and remain with petitioner Carmen San Jose-Lacson until June 15, 1963 — on which date, she
shall return the two elder children Enrique and Maria Teresa to petitioner Alfonso Lacson — this judgment
of course being subject to enforcement by execution writ and contempt.
The CFI find the joint petition “conformable to law”, hence, approved compromised agreement.
However, on May 7, 1963 Carmen filed a motion for the custody of all children be given to her in JDRC
since she claimed that she only entered into agreement to gain custody of her younger children and thus
should be given custody of the older ones as well who are all below 7 years old. CA ruled that
compromise agreement as relating to custody of children should be declared null and void and as such
the execution of said judgment is void too. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether the compromise agreement entered into by the parties and the judgment of the CFI
grounded on the said agreement, are conformable to law.
Ruling: Yes, the compromise agreement entered into by the parties are conformable to law with
regards to the separation of property. The compromise agreement and the judgment of the CFI
grounded on the said agreement are valid with respect to the separation of property of the spouses and
the dissolution of the conjugal partnership. The law allows separation of property of the spouses and
the dissolution of their conjugal partnership provided judicial sanction is secured beforehand. Thus, the
new Civil Code provides:
In the absence of an express declaration in the marriage settlements, the separation of property between
spouses during the marriage shall not take place save in virtue of a judicial order. (Art. 190, emphasis
supplied)
The husband and the wife may agree upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership during the
marriage, subject to judicial approval. All the creditors of the husband and of the wife, as well as of the
conjugal partnership, shall be notified of any petition for judicial approval of the voluntary dissolution of
the conjugal partnership, so that any such creditors may appear at the hearing to safeguard his interests.
Upon approval of the petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership, the court shall take such
measures as may protect the creditors and other third persons. (Art. 191, par. 4, emphasis supplied).
However, in so approving the regime of separation of property of the spouses and the dissolution of
their conjugal partnership, this Court does not thereby accord recognition to nor legalize the de facto
separation of the spouses. The husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support (art. 109, new Civil Code). There is, therefore,
virtue in making it as difficult as possible for married couples — impelled by no better cause than their
whims and caprices — to abandon each other's company.
In so far as it awarded custody of the two older children who were 6 and 5 years old, respectively, to the
father, in effect sought to separate them from their mother. To that extent therefore, it was null and
void because clearly violative of article 363 of the Civil Code. BUT since five years have elapsed since the
filing of these cases in 1963, the ages of the four children should now be as follows: Enrique — 11, Maria
Teresa — 10, Gerrard — 9, and Ramon — 5. Therefore, the issue regarding the award of the custody of
Enrique and Maria Teresa to the petitioner spouse has become moot and academic. The passage of time
has removed the prop which supports the respondent spouse's position. Besides, the eldest is now 11
years old and should be given the choice of the parent he wishes to live with. This is the clear mandate
of sec. 6, Rule 99 of the Rules of Court.
Nonetheless, this Court is loath to uphold the couple's agreement regarding the custody of the children.
Fallo: ACCORDINGLY, the decision dated May 11, 1964 and the resolution dated July 31, 1964 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. 32384-R (subject matter of G.R. L-23482), and the orders dated May 28,
1963 and June 24, 1963 of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (subject matter of G.R. L-23767)
are affirmed. G.R. L-24259 is hereby remanded to the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental for
further proceedings, in accordance with this decision. No pronouncement as to costs.

Lacson V Lacson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lacson V Lacson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lacson V Lacson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lacson v. Lacson 24 SCRA 837 (?

Full Text: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1968/aug1968/gr_l-23482_1968.html

You might also like