Case Digest: G.R. No. 132223. June 19, 2001

Bonifacia P. Vancil, petitioner, vs. Helen G. Belmes, respondent
_____________________________________________________________________

Facts: Petitioner is the mother of Reeder C. Vancil, a Navy serviceman of the United States of America who died in the said country on December 22, 1986. During his lifetime, Reeder had two children named Valerie and Vincent by his common-law wife, Helen G. Belmes. Petitioner commences before the RTC a guardianship proceeding over the persons and properties of minors Valerie, 6 years old and Vincent, 2 years old. She was appointed legal and judicial guardian over the persons and estate of said children. The natural mother of the minors, herein respondent, submitted an opposition to the subject guardianship proceedings asseverating that she had already filed a similar petition for guardianship. The trial court rejected and denied Belmes’ motion to remove and/or to disqualify Bonifacia as guardian.  The subsequent attempt for reconsideration was likewise dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC.

Issue: Who between the mother and grandmother of minor Vincent should be his guardian.

Ruling: Article 211 of the Family Code provides that 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. Indeed, being the natural mother of minor Vincent, respondent has the corresponding natural and legal right to his custody. The ruling in Sagala-Eslao vs. Court of Appeals is reiterated in this case that 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.

Petitioner’s claim to be the guardian of said minor can only be realized by way of substitute parental authority pursuant to Article 214 of the Family Code which states that in case of death, absence or unsuitability of the parents, substitute parental authority shall be exercised by the surviving grandparent. The ruling in Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals is reiterated herein that the law vests on the father and mother joint parental authority over the persons of their common children.  In case of absence or death of either parent, the parent present shall continue exercising parental authority.  Only in case of the parents’ death, absence or unsuitability may substitute parental authority be exercised by the surviving grandparent.

Hence, actual custody of and exercising parental authority over minor Vincent is vested on the natural mother.

Case Digest: G.R. No. L-47745. April 15, 1988

Jose S. Amadora, Loreta A. Amadora, Jose S. Amadora, Jr., Norma A. ylaya, Pantaleon A. Amadora, Jose A. Amdora III, Lucy A. Amadora, Rosalinda A. Amadora, Perfedto A. Amadora, Serreca A. Amadora, Vicente A. Amadora and Maria Tiscalina A. Amdora, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, Victor Lluch Sergio P. Damaso Jr., Celistino Dicon, Aniano Abellana, Pablito Damon thru his parents and natural guardians, Mr. and Mrs. Nicanor Gumban, and Rolando Valencia, thru his guardian, A. Francisco, respondents.

________________________________________________________________________

 

Facts: Alfredo Amadora, seventeen years old was about to graduate, however while in the school, Colegion de San Jose-Recoletos, a classmate, Pablito Damon, fired a gun that mortally hit Alfredo, ending all his expectations and his life as well. Damon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence.Herein petitioners, as the victim's parents, filed a civil action for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code against the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector the high school principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher, together with Damon and two other students, through their respective parents. The complaint against the students was later dropped

The trial court held the remaining defendants liable to the plaintiffs. On appeal to the respondent court, however, the decision was reversed and all the defendants were completely absolved. The petitioners contend that their son was in the school to show his physics experiment as a prerequisite to his graduation; hence, he was then under the custody of the private respondents. The private respondents submit that Alfredo had gone to the school only for the purpose of submitting his physics report and that he was no longer in their custody because the semester had already ended.

Issue: Whether or not Article 2180 covers even establishments which are technically not school of arts and trades, and, if so, when the offending student is supposed to be in its custody.

Ruling: The provision in question should apply to all schools, academic as well as non-academic. Where the school is academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher in charge of such student, following the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. Following the canon ofreddendo singula singulis "teachers" should apply to the words "pupils and students" and "heads of establishments of arts and trades" to the word "apprentices."

In sum, the Court finds under the facts as disclosed by the record and in the light of the principles herein announced that none of the respondents is liable for the injury inflicted by Pablito Damon on Alfredo Amadora that resulted in the latter's death at the auditorium of the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos. While the court deeply sympathize with the petitioners over the loss of their son under the tragic circumstances here related, the court nevertheless are unable to extend them the material relief they seek, as a balm to their grief, under the law they have invoked. Wherefore, the petition is denied.

Case Digest: G.R. No. 174689. October 22, 2007

Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio, petitioner, vs. Republic of the Philippines, respondent.
_______________________________________________________________________

Facts: Petitioner was born and registered as male. He admitted that he is a male transsexual, that is, “anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as a “female” and that he had always identified himself with girls since childhood. He underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment, breast augmentation and sex reassignment surgery. From then on, petitioner lived as female and was in fact engaged to be married. He then sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from Rommel Jacinto to Mely, and his sex from male to female. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner. Republic of the Philippines thru the OSG filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. CA rendered a decision in favor of the Republic.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to change his name and sex in his birth certificate.

Ruling: Article 376 of the Civil Code provides that no person can change his name or surname without judicial authority which was amended by RA 9048 – Clerical Error Law which does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. In addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. In this case, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true and official name. Article 412 of the Civil Code provides that no entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. All entries therein, including those corresponding to his first name and sex, were all correct. Hence, no correction is necessary. Article 413 of the Civil Code provides that all other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be governed by special laws. However, there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects. Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a historical record of the facts as they existed at the time of birth. Thus, the sex of a person is determined at birth, visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by examining the genitals of the infant. Considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended by error is immutable

For these reasons, while petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body and appearance through the intervention of modern surgery, no law authorizes the change of entry as to sex in the civil registry for that reason. Thus, there is no legal basis for his petition for the correction or change of the entries in his birth certificate. The remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of public policy to be addressed solely by the legislature, not by the courts. Hence, petition is denied.