GR No. 234660
GR No. 234660
GR No. 234660
$,Upretne <!Court
jfl!lnuiln
SECOND DIVISION
/___7
KHO, JR., JJ.
Respondent.
I_..-;-;
P• 1UI ated: ,,,
JD~ 16 202s/1 ~4)t
/\cting Chief Justice p::r Special IJrckr No. ·-~'>89 d,it-:d Jun e ·2..1, 2023 .
·• Working Chai1 per~on p<.:r Spt:<:i:li O rder N () _:? Ill):, dated Ju11C' '.2G, 2023 .
Darf'd Octob•~r 2<>, 2() 17, ro//o pp. 3- 52.
/cf. at 54--63 . Pe11ncd by ,\ ssnc;alt-: .lt, q i,:.- Cc:lia C. l.ibrea-Leagogt) and u )r11.:urrcd in hy Assoc iate
Ju<;ticcs M arin Elisa S<:'mpio 0iy and l'?.blito .'\. Perez •,)!"the Special Seventh Division, CA , Man ila.
/cl. ill I 03 - I 0--l. Pen1ied b:i, 1\s<;ocialc Ju~l ice Cel ia C. L ih1l',i·-L t!ag,1gl> and co ncurred in by Assoc iate
.:uslic<.:, Maria Ui!>a '.,en•pio O i>· and Pc1blito / \. i'er,;,-_c>f" 1l·1c Formt:r Special Sevcmh D iv ision, C /\ ,
Manila.
fp.
Decision
' G.R. No. 234660
No. I 51 807, which dismissed the Petition for Certiorari 4 of the Decision5
dated April 22, 20 14 and the Orders dated November 4, 2014,6 December 7
and I I, 20 I 4,7 August 26, 201 6/1 and J\,1ay 19, 2017 9 of the Regional Trial
Court of O longapo City, Branch 73 (RTC) in SP Proc. Case No. 123-0-2007-
- a habeas corpus case involvi ng a 111inor-for being time-barred.
The Facts
During the proceedings, the tri al coutt issued an order allowing the
conduct of DNA 12 testing of Winston at the sole expense of respondent. The
result of the DNA test, conducted at St. Luke's Medical Center, showed a
99.9997% probability of paternity of respondent. This was confirmed by the
testimony of the speciali st, Dr. Raymundo W. Lo, who conducted the test and
prepared the parentage report. Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision
after respondent formally offered hi s evidence and petitioners' comment
thereto was noted.'3
In a Decision 1•1 dated A pril 22, 2014, the RTC granted the petition and
consequently, awarded the c ustody over Winston to respond ent. 15 T he RTC
he ld that based on the records of the case, pa1ticularly the DNA test result,
parentage re po rt, and the birth certifi cate issued by the Offi ce of the C iv il
Registrar of O longapo C ity, respondent sufficie ntly establ ished his rig ht of
custody and parenta l authority over hi s minor son, Winston. In this regard, the
RTC d id not ascribe any significance that respondent is a divorcee and was
deported from t he USA for his dismissed case, opining that under A rti cles 2 12
and 213 1<' of the Family Code, 17 parental authority and custody over his son,
W inston, belongs to respondent. 18
11
Id. at 262- 266.
1
' Id at '.265- 266.
11
• T hese prov isions read:
A rt. '.2 12. In case or absence or death or either parent, the parent present shall continue exercising
parental authority . T he remarriage o f the surv iv ing parent shall not affect the parental authori ty over
the chi ldren, unless the court appoints another person to be the guc1rdian or the person or property
or the children.
A rt. 2 13. In case or separation o f" the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by th e parent
designated by the Courl. T he Court shal I take into account all relevant considerations, especially the
choice o f the child over seven years o f age, unless the pc1rent chosen is un fit.
17
Execu ti w Order No. 209, s. 1987 (July 6, 1987).
IX Rollo, pp. 264- 26 5.
19
Id. al 2 17- 220.
w Id. at 22 1- 222.
1
~ These prov isions prov ide:
A rt. 2 14. In cast.: o f death, absence or unsuitabi lity or the parents, substitute parenta l authority
shall be exercised by the surv iv ing grandparent. In case severa l survive, th e one designated by the
court. taking into accoun t thi: sam e consideration ment ioned in the preceding art icle, shal l exercise
the authori ty.
/\rl. 2 16. In defau lt or paren ts or a j udicia lly appointed guard ian. the fol lowing person shall
exercise substitute parental authority over the chi ld in the order indicated:
( I ) T he surv iv ing grandparent, as prov ided in A rt. '.2 14;
(2 ) The oldest brothcr or sister, over twenty -onc years or age, unless un fo or disqual i fied; and
(3) The ch ild 's actual custodian, over twe nry -one years or age, unh.:ss unfit or disqual ified.
W henever the appointrnent or a judicial guard ian over the properl y of the chi ld becomes
nccessary . th e :mme ordl'r or prererence shall be observed. (349a. 35 1a, 354a)
Decision 4 G.R. No. 234660
22
SC or the "Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in
Relation to C ustody of Minors" (Ru le on Custody of Minors).23 The RTC
denied the fo regoing motions in an Order dated November 4, 20 14.
In an Order dated A ugust 26, 20 16, the RTC declared that the dismissal
of petitioners ' Notice of Appeal has become immutab le or unalterable as no
legal remedy was availed of before the trial couti or the Supreme Court.32
Petitioners therea fter moved for reconsideration, 33 but was denied in an
22
Which took effect on May I 'i, 2003 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation not
later than April 30. 2003 .
"·' See petitioners' Supplemental Moti,Jn for Reu,nsideration; rollo, pp. 224-243.
2
-1 Id. at 209- 2 1 I .
25
Section 13. Dismissal u(appeal. - Prior to the lra11s111 ittal of the original record or the record on appeal
to the appellate court, rhe trial court may 1110111 propio or on motion dismiss the appeal for having been
taken oul of time. ( I 4a)
2
" Rollo, p. 20:'i.
27
Id. at 207.
28
Not attaclwd l o the rullo.
2
'J Ro/In, pp. 179- 202.
:w Id. at 180-- 18 :.
1
-' Id at 200.
J2 Id. at 170.
33
Id. at 148- 167.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 234660
O rder34 dated May 19, 20 17 fo r lack or merit, it being a second motion for
reconsideration, w hich can no longer be enteiiained .35
The CA Ruling
In a Resol ution38 dated A ugust 23, 2017, the CA dismissed the Petition
fo r Certiorari before it fo r being timc-barred. 39 It held that under R ule 4 1,
Section 1 of the Rul es of Court, an order disallowing or d ismissing an appeal
may be assa iled o nly v ia a certiorari petition under Rule 65 filed not later than
60 days from notice of the j udgment, order, or resolution. Here, the CA
o bserved that petit ioners received the copy of the RTC's August 26, 20 16
O rd er on March 9, 20 17. Since petitioners' certiorari petition was filed only
on July 28, 20 17, the 60-day reglementary period had clearly already expired.
In this regard, the CA highlighted that the "60-day period shall be reckoned
from the tri al court's deni al of (the) fi rst motion for recons iderati on . . ." 40 and
not from the denial of their second motion for reconsideration- in the May
19, 20 17 Order- which did not toll the running of Lhe reglementary period.
As such, the outright dismissai of rheir certiorari petition is warranted under
the c ircumstances.4 1
Fu11her, the CA fo und that the RTC's Apri l 22, 2014 Decision has long
becorne fin a l and executory, conside ring th at petitio ners paid the docket and
0ther lawful fees only on November 27, 2014 desp ite filing the ir Notice of
Appeal on November 24, 20 14. Accord ing to the CA, case law ho lds that the
appellant s hall pay the t1-.11l amount of the appellate court' s docket an d other
lawful fees w ithin the pe riod for taking an appeal, fa iling in which the trial
court may, mntu proprio o r 011 motio n, dismiss the appeal, as the RTC had
correctly dl,ne so in this case. In this respect, the CA noted that under Section
3, R ule 41 of the Ru les of Court, appea ls in habeas cnrpus cases sha ll be made
31
• Id. al 146-- 147 .
15
Id. a l 14 7.
;c, Id. at 267. Issued by O !C-l'ourl Interpreter Ill Lvclyn A. Tee.
17
/d.a i 139.
8
' Id. at 54- 63 .
·,,, lei. a l 62.
10
• Id. al 58.
1
·• /d.at 56- 58.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 234660
within 48 hours from notice of the decision. Since petitioners received a copy
of the November 4, 2014 Order on November 14, 2014, petitioners' appeal
was clearly filed out of time. In any event, the CA ruled that petitioners'
failure to immediately assail the dismissal of their Notice of Appeal before it
(CA) rendered such dismissal immutable. 42
1
•~ Id. at 58- 60.
43
Id. at 64- 78.
-1-1 Id. at 3--52.
15
• See Certifi,;ation issued by th e Phi lippine Postal Corporation, ()uezon City Central Post Office, stating
that ·'per avui!ohle I ecol"(/ 0/thi.1· O/lh:e. Registaed I.el/er No. 2179 recorded os 2779 which was mailed
011 t"vovemher .?7, 201 -1 at U/011gap11 ('it,· f' o s! c;fi!r.:e und addre.1·.iwl tu [petitioners' counsel/ ... was
delivered 011 Dece11mer OJ, 20 I../ . .. " Id. at i n .
i(, Id at 20- 28 .
•,; Id. at 28 - 34 .
Decision 7 G.R. No. 234660
O n this score, the Court e mphasizes that what is ultimately at stake here
is the custody over W inston and as such, the paramount consideration must
be his best interest. Notably, even prio r to the adoption of the Family Code,
Article 363 of the Civil Code 59 expressly mandated that in all questions
relating to the care, custody, ed ucation, and property of the children, the
latter's welfa re is paramount. The R ule on C ustody of l\,1inors reiterated this
mandate as it explicitly stales that ·' [iln awarding custody, the court shall
consider the best interests of the m:r.or and shall give paramount consideration
to [their] malerial and moral welfare. The best interests of the minor refer
17
• C./1-/ 1•
D c v el op1111ml C u r 1 1 o r aticJ1I \ 1 l11iu d o . r
37(1 Phi:. ! 93, 213 (2020) Per .I. Leoncn. Third Division].
'
8
Id. at 2 13- 7. 14, citation 0111it ted .~lso SeC' G .R. No. 21!3646, June n, 2022 [ Per j_
R.?r.11h!ic "· Kik u chi,
Hernando, first D ivision I ~hllps://c li brnr, .jud: c in,) ' .gov.ph/thebook;;hcl f/s howdocs/ I /68394> .
S'! Rerubli c Ad No. j8(,, r ntit il-d ··A, ·1 ro 0RD I\ IN AND I NST!TUTI' Till : C'!VII. COLJI.: OF Ti ll:
J\c
For these reasons, and under the attendant circumstances of this case, it
behooves the Court to set aside technicali ties to ach ieve substantial justice. To
recall, the RTC dismissed petitioners' Notice of Appeal for nonpayment
of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period. 6 1 T he
CA, on the other hand, dismissed petitioners' certiorari petition for being
filed out of time. It also essentially upheld the RTC's dismissal of
petitioners' appeal on the ground that the RTC's April 22, 2014 Decision
has long become final and executory and thus, immutable for their failure
to timely pay the docket and other lawful fees. 62
Under the doctrine of parens patriae, the State, as the sovereign, has
the inherent ri ght and duty to minimi ze the risk of hann to those w ho, because
of the ir minority, are yet unable to take care of themselves fully. 63 As the
subsequent discussions will show, the Collli finds that the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion in d ismiss ing petitioners ' Notice .2.f Appeal. Also,
the CA committed revers ible error in fai ling to relax the application of
procedural rules in the interest of justice. Veri ly, the fund amental policy of
the State, as embod ied in the Constitution, in promoting and protecting the
welfare of c hildren, as we ll as the grav ity of the issues in vo lved in this case,
cal ls for the Court's exercise of its equity jurisdiction.
I.
w See S.:cl ion 14 uf' the Rtile 011 Cuslociy of Minors. See ,:lso /I fas hute i·. Reluci n, 837 Phil. 5 ! 5, 533--534
(2018) I Per .I. J>erlas -13crnabe, Second D ivisiwi I (Ernphasi:; suprliecl. citation ornillcd).
''
1
Rollo, r - 205.
12
' Id. at % - 58.
<,., See !Jr,x:..,111 \I. l'<'ople. G .R. N1•. '.".:J,J ) (I _ Arri I 28, :202 1 JPer .I. .I. l.opa, Th ird Divisiori]
<htlps:llel i [,rary .jud ic:ary .~o•; .p!i/ ihcbookshc! J:'sl:owdocs/ : /0 73 8 anJ So111aha11 ng 111gu l'rogresibung
Kabataan (.'>l',-IR/,;) v. Qu..:.:011C//y, 1;15 Ph ii . 1067. 1101 (}lll7) (Pcr.l. Perlas-Bernabe, En /Jane].
Decision 10 G.R. No. 234660
01
• Entitled --20 I 9 /\Ml :NDM I :NTS TO Tl II' 1997 R1'I.I :\ cIF c,v,1 . f>RI )\ ·u)l IRI ., ( rvlay I , 2020).
5
" Reyes" l:.:lq11ie1·0, 8~ I Phil. 66, 19 !'.W2U) I P~r J. G:ierlan, Third Division 1-
,,,. Id.
17
' Entitled ·' RI-: /\11111:N l )Ml'~IT TO St .CT:<)N 3, IWLI: 4 I ()I Tl II ' I '.1 117 !l.l 11.! ·s 0 1' l"!YII . l'IWCUJURI:."
Decision 11 G.R. No. 234660
the Ru le on C ustody of Minors took effect on May 15, 2003. As the later
enactment, the Ru le on C ustody of Minors should be deemed to have
effectively amended A.M . No. 01-1-03-SC with respect to the period of
appeal in habeas corpus cases in vo lvi ng minors in view of their evident
inconsistency.
T hus, the 15-day appea l period provided under Section 19 of the Rule
on C ustody of Mino rs should be deemed to have effectively amended the 48-
hour appeal peri od provided under R ule 41 , Section 3 of the Rules of Court
s uch that when the subiect of a petition for habeas corpus are minors. the
Rule on Custody of Minors shall primarily apply, while the Rules of Court
shall have s uppletorv application.
r,x Section 2. Fili1•g ancl st:rl'ice, DeJilwd. • Fi l ing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to
the clerk of court.
Service is the :icl or providing a party w ith a copy of the pleading or paper concerned. If any party
has appeared hy counsel, service upon him sha ll be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless
service upon th e party himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears for several parties,
he shall only be en titlt:d to one copy of a11y paper served upon him by the opposite ~ide. (Emphasis
supplied)
Note thm following lhc 20 19 A mendments 10 the 1997 Rules or Civil Procedure. Ruic I 3, Section 2 now
reads:
Section 2. Fil ing a11d l sl<::rvicc, dcCncd. - Piling is the act or subm itting the pleading or other paper to
the court.
Service is tli1.• ft<: I ur p1 llViding a party w nh a copy of the plead ing rJr any other court submission. If
a party has appeared by counsel, service upon such partv shall be made upon his or her counsel,
unless service upon the party and tht: party's counsel is ord ered by the court. Where one counsel
appenrs for several par1i e:;, such counsel shal l on l_v be entit led to one copy of any paper served by the
opposite side.
Where several counsels appear for 0111c: par1:1, such party ::,ha ll be entitled to only one copy or any
pl1c:ading or paper to be served upon !he leau r;.:>~:nsel I!' one is designated, or upon any one of them 1r
there is no dcsigna1ion ofa lead coun~:::l. (::'..i) (Emphasis su µplied)
M 1/eirs 11/lk11ia111i11 1\ /e11d11::a v. C.lf. 587 JJ11il. 280,287 (2tl08) jPer .l. Tin ga, Second Division); PN/J v.
c'.-1, 3 16 Phil. J7 ! ( 19<)5) !Per J. Davide. .:r .. l~n U,111cl: and T11111 Wi11g 7~,/.. v. Makusiar, 403 Phil. 39 1
(2001 ) I Per J. Quisumhing. Second Division].
70 I l eirs r~{ B11niw11i11 1 1emlo:o 11. ( ·.,! , fd.; !'N B 1·. CA . J 16 Phil. 37 1, id.: and Tc.1111 Wing Tak v. Makasiar,
id
Deci sion 12 G.R. No. 234660
To recal l, the November 4, 2014 Order of the RTC was served on one
of the petitione rs, and not on petiti0ners' counsel of record . Significantly,
petitioners have consistently argued that their counsel of record officially
received copy of the said O rder on ly on December 3, 2014. Thus, following
Ru le 13, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 19 of the Rule
on Custody of Minors, petitioners in fact had until December l 8, 20 I 4 within
which to fi le the ir Notice of Appeal and pay the fu ll amount of the docket and
other lawfu l fees . As shown herein, petit ioners duly complied with both the
fil ing of the Notice of Appeal on November 24, 2014 anrl payment of the
appe llate docket and other lawful fees on November 27, 2014, and thus
petit ioners' appeal was made we ll within the reglementary period.
Even if we consider that the copy of the RTC's Order denying the
motion for reconsideration from the April 22, 2014 Decision was validly
served on one of the petitioners on November 14, 2014, they had until
November 29, 2014 w ithin which to appeal. Since petitioners filed their
Notice of Appeal on November 24, 2014, the same was clearly filed well
within the reglementary period.
IL
fees must be made w ithin the 15-day appeal period, failing in which may
warrant the dismissal of the appeal under Section 13 of Rule 41:
Case law explains that' a party 's appeal by Notice of Appeal is perfected
as to them upon the fi li ng of ihe same in due time, together w ith the payment
of dock.et and other lawful fees, which should likewise be paid within the
prescribed period. 71 Both requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional and
a party's fail ure to perfect the appeal in the manner and within the period fixed
by law render the judgment final and executory .n
71
Vi/la111or l'. CA. 478 Phil. 7:28 ('.2004 ) lPcr J. Ca:lejo, S r .. s~cond f)i;,ision·I and Spo11.,e.1· lei.! and Huang
l .und lh111k <!/the l' hili11,n11w,·. 78 1 Phi I. 2-13 '.2.'i I (20 l 6) Wer J. Pcrlas-8ernabc, First Divis ion ] .
11 •
72
Sl!I! l 1 illa111or 1·. C.11, id.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 234660
Ill.
While the CA may have correctly determi ned that the Petition for
Certiorari was filed o ut o r time, its grave lega l error arises from the fact that
it fa iled to recognize the g rave jurisdictiona l errors that attended the RTC's
d ismissal of petit ioner's Notice of Appeal for failure to t imely pay the
appe llate co urt docket and other lawfu l fees . If on ly to underscore th is relevant
po int, th ere is nothing in the Rules that req uire the simu ltaneous pay ment of
71
- It pertinently provides:
SECTI ON I. S11hiecl o/appual. - An appeal may be tak en l'rom a judgment or linal order that
completely disposes of the case, or o f'a part icular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be
appealablc.
In all th e above instances where the judgment or fi nal order is not appealable. the aggrieved
pa rty nrny file an appropriate special civil action under R ule 65. (11) (Emphasis supplied)
7
·' 11 pert inent ly reads:
SECT ION 4. IVl,e11 (//Id wher e petitio11ji/er/. -- T he petition shall be filed not later than sixty
(60) days fro m notice of the judgment, order or reso lution. In case a motion for reconsideration
or new tria l is timely Ii led, whether such moti on is req uired or not. the sixty (60) day per iod shall
be counted from noti ce of the denial of said mot ion. (Emphasis supplied)
Decision 15 U.R. No. 234660
the appellate court fees and fi li ng of the notice of appeal in order that the
appeal is perfected. So long as both the filing and payment requirements are
duly complied with w ithin the appea l period, the appeal must be deemed
perfected even iC th e docket and other lawful fees were paid days after the
notice of appeal was filed. T hus, whether counted from November 14, 2014,
i.e., the serv ice of the November 4, 20 14 O rder on one of the petitioners, or
from December 3, 2014, i.e., receipt by petitioners' counsel of the November
4, 2014 O rder, petitioners' appea l was duly perfected w ithin the 15-day
reglementary period fo r appeal.
75
Cruz v. l'eop/e, 8 i 2 Ph ii. 166, I 7:1 (~li ! ~• ) it'cr J. Leo;icn, Secord Division]: c1tatio11s omitted. Sec also
Utohal M edic11I C.·11/er c,/'l.ug111w. l11c:. ,'. l?,1.,., :,1'," e111.,· l111ema1io11u!. l11c·., G. R. Nn. 2JO 112. May 11 ,
202 1 l Per .I . Caguioa. ,~·, , /1mu:I •'ht1ps:111:li!:-r::rv._:11cliciary.gov.p11/tht'l1ookslv~it·ts1towdocs/l/67423> and
Nt'n 1·. Of/ic-.! oj'1l1c U111hu,l.rnw11. 88,: Phil. 188. 250 (2020) I Pcr J. J. Reyes. Jr., E11 l1a11,·l
71
' Ot·,m111,1 v /:nrh11w.:. 798 Ph i l. ?..'27, 294 l 20 i11) Ll'•~r .I. Pcralln, /-, •7 Un11c] .
77
Spouses IJ11c1u!f/t;r 1•. C l. 400 l'hi!. .195 (2LIOU) fP::r J. Kaµunan , rirs: Di'v isio nJ.
7
x I
Den-cw ACF 811.1 Line., ,,. , Ing. 8.',() l'iiil. 778, '7S6 (.2(i 19) P,tr .I. ,.~ag11i\1H. Second f)i visiu11 ! and !lei rs of'
M11ura .<:o 1· UN111.w·a. 566 Plu!. , ,n, : 1(:7 ,::::uOl\!; Per J. Nach:m:, Tlii:·u D ivision I-
Decision 16 G .R. No. 234660
award of quas i-judic ial agencies must become fin al on some definite date
fixed by law. 79
IV.
In add ition to the foregoing, the Court likewise finds that the RTC
committed such grav~ and arb itrary legal error in rely ing on the provisions of
71
' Heirs o(!vf111:ra So v. Ohlio.1·c,1. i d :11 ,lQS a1:d D,,vuo ACF nus U1,es v. //n,I!. id. at 786.
8
°
st
Crisnl, .Jr. v. C'OA. G.R. No. 23576'1. Septt·, nlwr 14,202 ! l'l'er J. RO$mio, J:'11 Bum:].
Heirs u//vlu11ra Su 1·. Uh/iosca, 566 Phil. 397. 403 (2008) I Per J. Nachurn, Third Division l :i11d S.:curilies
and EYdwnp,e Cc1111111ission v. College As.rnri1nce Nu11 Philippines. Inc., 883 Ph ii 13'1, 165 (2020) [Per
J. Lconen., Th ird Division j.
82
Crisol. .Jr. v. CCA, G.R. No. 23576-;, i:;q:: tL·mlJL:r 14, :.:021 I Per .I . Rosario, /:,"n !Jane] nnd Neirs oj'Mauru
So ,,. Oh/in.1·cc1, id
~; Mashate ,•. Re/11ciu, 837 Phi l. 5 15, ::2."i :20 1g) I l'ci .I. P•~~la5-l1c1w1bc. s~cond Div ision].
Decision 17 G.R. No. 234660
A rticl es 212 and 2 13 of the F.-irni ly Code in award ing respondent custody over
W inston.
As a rul e, the father and the mother sha ll jo intly exercise parental
authority ove r the persons of their common children . However, with respect
to illegitimate c hildren, Article 1768s of the Family Code explicitly grants
the sole parental a uthority to the mother, nohvithstanding the father's
recognition of the c hild. 86 ln the exercise of that authority, mothers are
consequently entitl ed to keep the ir illegitimate children in their company, and
the Court w ill not depri ve them o f custody, absent any imperative cause
showing the mothe r's unfitness to exercise such authority and care. 87
(2) T he oldest brother ._:ir sister, over twenty-one years or age, unl ess
unfit or disquali fa:d; and
81
• Santos. Sr. v. s,,o,,se~ fJed:,1, ::; 12 Phi I. <182 ( I CJ9~,) I Per .1 R•)nH~r0, Third D iv is ion I.
85
/\rt. 176. I l!cg i1 im:11•! chiidrcn shall u~c the :;urnw~H: :111d sh'.111 l'e unde;- the parcnt::tl au thority or their
rnothcr, and shall be entitled lo supp,,n ;n c,11·,forn1ity with this Code. The legitimc o f each illegiti mate
child shall co11sis1 or one-hall· o f thi:: •·~giiimc of a legiti:nate child. Except for this modilicmion, all t,ther
provision:; in 1he Ci vi l Code govcrni11!~ suc.:.::;sir-11111 right, shal l 1-..~111ain in fore..:. (~87a)
8
" Mashale v. /?e/11cio. 837 Ph il. 51:',, 52: (211 18) jPc~r .1. Perlas- Bcrnab•~ Second Div ision] ; Recio 1•.
Ti·oci110 , 8~U Phil. --130. 44<1(20 17) I P\!r Curi,rn1. E11 iluncl. S<!e also Ma11111gdi11g v. l3<"r.1·m11i1w, G.R. Nu.
252476, March 18. 202 1 IFirs! Div1~i111 1 !.
87
tvfasbme "· Reludo. id
Decision 18 G.R. No. 234660
xx Santos. Sr. v. ,'-,'pouses Bedia, ·;i2 hii. 48? ( 109) ) (Per .i . R<.nner'-'· 'lhird Divisionj and Tonog v.
Dagumwl. 427 Phil. I (2002) I Per J. Uc Leon . .Ir.. Second Divi:;ion;.
81
' Mash,,re v. Re/u<'io. 837 Phil. 5 15 535 121} i g) [f'-::r .I. l'erlr:s-i:{e1w1be, Sec.;ond. Division].
Decision 19 G.R. No. 23 4660
(a) A ny exlraj udici al agreement w hich the parties may have bound
themselves l o comply wi th respecting the rights of the minor to maintain
di rect contact ,..,·ith the non cus1od i2l parent on a regular basis, except
when there is an ex isting threat or d~nger or physical, mental, sexual or
emot ional violence which e11dangers tile safely and best interests of the
rrnnor;
(b) The desire and abil ity ol' one pan.:11l to foster an open anct loving
relationsl1i p het¼een the minor and the other parent;
(d) Any hi story of child or spousal abuse by the person seek ing custody
or who has had any fili al relationship w ith the minor. including anyone
courting the parent;
(i) The preference of the minor ove1· :-even years of ~gc and of
sufficient discernment, unless the par·ent chosen is unfit. (F.mphasis
suppl ied)
Sectioi1 8. c·ase study: d 11~v o(.wc;ia/ H-'or ker . - l Ji:,,)n the lil i11g ol' the
vcri l!ed answer or the cxpira~ion ot' the period to li le it, tht: court me!)' order
a soc ial wo rk.er lo rnakc__c: _c:.-1:;c_ study _o t' Lhc mi ne,r and_t11c...12artics and_ .L.!.
submit a report and recor.-in1ciJ9_ ~•,j_,,w_~ _t_h<;_coLu:_l at !cast three days before
th,: sched1tlecl prc-1rial. (Lindc!·scorn1g surrlied)
Decision 20 G.R. No. 234660
•io See ,\4,111i11gr/ing v. ill'rsall)inu, G.R. No. 2.'i?.4H,, M,1 rrh 18, 1(P I lFirst Divisionj.
Decisio n 21 G.R. No. 234660
V.
A ll told, the Court finds that the RTC committed grave <1.buse of
discretion in awarding respondent custody over Winston based solely on
parentage. Consegvently, the CA committed reversible error in dism issing
outright the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioners from the said RTC
ruling on procedural grounds. For these reasons, the Court deems it proper
to remand the case to the court a quo for the resolution of the case with
dispatch, taking into consideration, among others, the factors and
measures provided under the Rule on Custody of Minors.
SO ORDERED.
22 G.R. No. 234660
WE CONCUR:
AM/4~RO-JAVIER
f;.,_ssoc iak J ustice
Working Chairperson
JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION