ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
CARLITOS
E. SILVA,
G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997 -versus-HON.
COURT OF
APPEALS
VITUG, J.:
Parents have the natural right, as well as the moral and legal duty, to care for their children, see to their proper upbringing and safeguard their best interest and welfare. This authority and responsibility may not be unduly denied the parents; neither may it be renounced by them. Even when the parents are estranged and their affection for each other is lost, the attachment and feeling for their offsprings invariably remain unchanged. Neither the law nor the courts allow this affinity to suffer absent, of course, any real, grave and imminent threat to the well-being of the child. The petition bears upon this concern.cralaw:red Carlitos E. Silva, a married businessman, and Suzanne T. Gonzales, an unmarried local actress, cohabited without the benefit of marriage. The union saw the birth of two children: Ramon Carlos and Rica Natalia. Not very long after, a rift in their relationship surfaced. It began, according to Silva, when Gonzales decided to resume her acting career over his vigorous objections. The assertion was quickly refuted by Gonzales who claimed that she, in fact, had never stopped working throughout their relationship. At any rate, the two eventually parted ways.cralaw:red The instant controversy was spawned, in February 1986, by the refusal of Gonzales to allow Silva, in apparent contravention of a previous understanding, to have the children in his company on weekends. Silva filed a petition for custodial rights over the children before the Regional Trial Court ("RTC"), Branch 78, of Quezon City. The petition was opposed by Gonzales who averred that Silva often engaged in "gambling and womanizing" which she feared could affect the moral and social values of the children.cralaw:red In an order, dated 07 April 1989, the trial court adjudged: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered directing respondent to allow herein petitioner visitorial rights to his children during Saturdays and/or Sundays, but in no case should he take out the children without the written consent of the mother or respondent herein. No pronouncement as to costs.[1] Silva appeared somehow satisfied with the judgment for only Gonzales interposed an appeal from the RTC's order to the Court of Appeals.cralaw:red In the meantime, Gonzales got married to a Dutch national. The newlyweds emigrated to Holland with Ramon Carlos and Rica Natalia.cralaw:red On 23 September 1993, the appellate tribunal ruled in favor of Gonzales; it held:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Every child has the right to be brought up in an atmosphere of morality and rectitude for the enrichment and the strengthening of his character. (6) (7) (8) Every child has the right to protection against exploitation, improper influences, hazards and other conditions or circumstances prejudicial to his physical, mental emotional social and moral development. xxx xxx xxx With Articles 3 and 8 of P. D. 603, in mind, We find it to the best interest of the minor children, to deny visitorial and/or temporary custodial rights to the father, even at the expense of hurting said parent. After all, if indeed his love for the children is genuine and more divine than the love for himself, a little self-sacrifice and self-denial may bring more benefit to the children. While petitioner-appellee, as father, may not intentionally prejudice the children by improper influence, what the children may witness and hear while in their father's house may not be in keeping with the atmosphere of morality and rectitude where they should be brought up. The children concerned are still in their early formative years of life. The molding of the character of the child starts at home. A home with only one parent is more normal than two separate houses (one house where one parent lives and another house where the other parent with another woman/man lives). After all, under Article 176 of the Family Code, illegitimate children are supposed to use the surname of and shall be under the parental authority of their mother.cralaw:red The child is one of the most important assets of the nation. It is thus important we be careful in rearing the children especially so if they are illegitimate, as in this case.
The issue before us is not really a question of child custody; instead, the case merely concerns the visitation right of a parent over his children which the trial court has adjudged in favor of petitioner by holding that he shall have "visitorial rights to his children during Saturdays and/or Sundays, but in no case [could] he take out the children without the written consent of the mother." The visitation right referred to is the right of access of a noncustodial parent to his or her child or children.[3] There is, despite a dearth of specific legal provisions, enough recognition on the inherent and natural right of parents over their children. Article 150 of the Family Code expresses that "(f)amily relations include those (2) between parents and children." Article 209, in relation to Article 220, of the Code states that it is the natural right and duty of parents and those exercising parental authority to, among other things, keep children in their company and to give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding. The Constitution itself speaks in terms of the "natural and primary rights" of parents in the rearing of the youth.[4] There is nothing conclusive to indicate that these provisions are meant to solely address themselves to legitimate relationships. Indeed, although in varying degrees, the laws on support and successional rights, by way of examples, clearly go beyond the legitimate members of the family and so explicitly encompass illegitimate relationships as well.[5] Then, too, and most importantly, in the declaration of nullity of marriages, a situation that presupposes a void or inexistent marriage, Article 49 of the Family Code provides for appropriate visitation rights to parents who are not given custody of their children.cralaw:red There is no doubt that in all cases involving a child, his interest and welfare is always the paramount consideration. The Court shares the view of the Solicitor General, who has recommended due course to the petition, that a few hours spent by petitioner with the children, however, could not all be that detrimental to the children. Similarly, what the trial court has observed is not entirely without merit; thus:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is reinstated, reversing thereby the judgment of the appellate court which is hereby set aside. No costs.cralaw:red SO ORDERED.cralaw:red Padilla, Bellosillo
and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
_________________________________
[1]
Rollo, p. 29.
|
|