Facts:

Bonifacia Vancil, is the mother of Reeder C. Vancil, a US Navy serviceman who died in 1986. During his lifetime, Reeder had two children named Valerie and Vincent by his common-law wife, Helen G. Belmes.

Bonifacia obtained a favorable court decision appointing her as legal and judicial guardian over the persons and estate of Valerie and Vincent.

Helen submitted an opposition to the subject guardianship proceedings asseverating that she had already filed a similar petition for guardianship before the RTC of Pagadian City. Helen followed her opposition with a motion for the Removal of Guardian and Appointment of a New One, asserting that she is the natural mother in actual custody of and exercising parental authority over the subject minors at Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur where they are permanently residing. She also states that at the time the petition was filed, Bonifacia was a resident of Colorado, U.S.A., being a naturalized American citizen.

The trial court rejected and denied Helen’s motion to remove and/or to disqualify Bonifacia as guardian of Valerie and Vincent Jr. The CA reversed the RTC decision. 

Since Valerie had reached the age of majority at the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the issue revolved around the guardianship of Vincent.


Issue: 

Who between the mother and grandmother of minor Vincent should be his guardian?


Held:

Respondent Helen Belmes, being the natural mother of the minor, has the preferential right over that of petitioner  Bonifacia to be his guardian. Article 211 of the Family Code provides:

"Art. 211. 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. xxx."

Indeed, being the natural mother of minor Vincent, Helen has the corresponding natural and legal right to his custody.

"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." (Sagala-Eslao vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 317 [1997])

Bonifacia contends that she is more qualified as guardian of Vincent.

Bonifacia’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, thus:

"Art. 214. In case of death, absence or unsuitability of the parents, substitute parental authority shall be exercised by the surviving grandparent. xxx."

In Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals (242 SCRA 407 (1995), this Court ruled:

"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."

Bonifacia, as the surviving grandparent, can exercise substitute parental authority only in case of death, absence or unsuitability of Helen. Considering that Helen is very much alive and has exercised continuously parental authority over Vincent,   Bonifacia  has to prove, in asserting her right to be the minor’s guardian, Helen’s unsuitability. Bonifacia, however, has not proffered convincing evidence showing that Helen is not suited to be the guardian of Vincent.  Bonifacia merely insists that Helen is morally unfit as guardian of Valerie considering that her live-in partner raped Valerie several times. But Valerie, being now of major age, is no longer a subject of this guardianship proceeding.

Even assuming that Helen is unfit as guardian of minor Vincent, still Bonifacia cannot qualify as a substitute guardian. She is an American citizen and a resident of Colorado. Obviously, she will not be able to perform the responsibilities and obligations required of a guardian. In fact, in her petition, she admitted the difficulty of discharging the duties of a guardian by an expatriate, like her. To be sure, she will merely delegate those duties to someone else who may not also qualify as a guardian.

There is nothing in the law which requires the courts to appoint residents only as administrators or guardians. However, notwithstanding the fact that there are no statutory requirements upon this question, the courts, charged with the responsibilities of protecting the estates of deceased persons, wards of the estate, etc., will find much difficulty in complying with this duty by appointing administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to their jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that there is no statutory requirement, the courts should not consent to the appointment of persons as administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to the jurisdiction of our courts here. (Bonifacia Vancil vs. Helen G. Belmes, G.R. No. 132223, June 19, 2001).