_______________________________________________________________________
Facts: Maria Paz
Cordero-Ouye and Reynaldo Eslao were married of whom two children were
begotten, namely, Leslie and Angelica Eslao. Leslie was entrusted to the care
and custody of Maria, while Angelica stayed with the husband’s mother,
Teresita. When Reynaldo died, Maria intended to bring Angelica with her to
Pampanga but Teresita prevailed upon her to entrust the custody of Angelica to
her, she reasoned out that her son just died and to assuage her grief therefor,
she needed the company of the child to at least compensate for the loss of her
late son. Maria got married
to certain Dr. James Ouye and migrated to San Francisco, California, USA,
joining her new husband. Maria then returned to the Philippines to be reunited
with her children and bring them to the United States; she then informed Teresita
about her desire to take custody of Angelica and explained that her present
husband expressed his willingness to adopt Leslie and Angelica and to provide
for their support and education. However, Teresita resisted the idea by way of
explaining that the child was entrusted to her when she was ten days old and
accused Maria of having abandoned Angelica.
Issue: Whether or not the mother have the right to the custody of her
daughter.
Ruling: The court reiterated its ruling in Santos, Sr. vs. Court of
Appeals, that parental authority is
a mass of rights and obligations which the law grants to parents for the
purpose of the children’s physical preservation and development, as well as the
cultivation of their intellect and the education of their heart and senses. As regards parental authority, ‘there
is no power, but a task; no complex of rights, but a sum of duties; no
sovereignty but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor. Parental authority
and responsibility are inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced except in cases 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 institution. When a
parent entrusts the custody of a minor to another, such as a friend or
godfather, even in a document, what is given is merely temporary custody and it
does not constitute a renunciation of parental authority. Even if a definite renunciation is
manifest, the law still disallows the same.
Thus, in the instant
petition, when private respondent entrusted the custody of her minor child to
the petitioner, what she gave to the latter was merely temporary custody and it
did not constitute abandonment or renunciation of parental authority. For 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 institution which do not appear in the case at bar.
Of considerable importance
is the rule long accepted by the courts that 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment