Facts:
Carlitos Silva and Suzanne Gonzales cohabited without the benefit of marriage and they had two children. A rift surfaced and the two eventually separated. They agreed that Carlitos would have the children in his company on weekends.
Claiming that Suzanne broke the agreement, Carlitos filed a petition for custodial rights over the children before the RTC. Suzanne opposed, alleging that Carlitos often engaged in "gambling and womanizing" which she feared could affect the moral and social values of the children.
The RTC ruled in favor of Carlitos giving him visitorial rights to his children during Saturdays and/or Sundays. The court however explicitly stated that in no case should Carlitos take the children out without the written consent of Suzanne.
Suzanne appealed. In the meantime, she got married to a Dutch national and eventually immigrated to Holland with her children. The CA reversed the ruling of the RTC and denied the Carlitos any visitorial rights. Carlitos appealed.
Claiming that Suzanne broke the agreement, Carlitos filed a petition for custodial rights over the children before the RTC. Suzanne opposed, alleging that Carlitos often engaged in "gambling and womanizing" which she feared could affect the moral and social values of the children.
The RTC ruled in favor of Carlitos giving him visitorial rights to his children during Saturdays and/or Sundays. The court however explicitly stated that in no case should Carlitos take the children out without the written consent of Suzanne.
Suzanne appealed. In the meantime, she got married to a Dutch national and eventually immigrated to Holland with her children. The CA reversed the ruling of the RTC and denied the Carlitos any visitorial rights. Carlitos appealed.
Issue:
Should Carlitos be denied visitorial rights?
Held:
No. The visitation right referred to is the right of access of a noncustodial parent to his or her child or children.
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 x x x (2) (b)etween parents and children; x x x." 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. 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. 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.
The allegations of respondent against the character of petitioner, even assuming as true, cannot be taken as sufficient basis to render petitioner an unfit father. The fears expressed by respondent to the effect that petitioner shall be able to corrupt and degrade their children once allowed to even temporarily associate with petitioner is but the product of respondent's unfounded imagination, for no man, bereft of all moral persuasions and goodness, would ever take the trouble and expense in instituting a legal action for the purpose of seeing his illegitimate children. It can just be imagined the deep sorrows of a father who is deprived of his children of tender ages.
It seems unlikely that petitioner would have ulterior motives or undue designs more than a parents natural desire to be able to call on, even if it were only on brief visits, his own children. The trial court, in any case, has seen it fit to understandably provide this precautionary measure, i.e., "in no case (can petitioner) take out the children without the written consent of the mother."
RTC decision reinstated. (Silva vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114742. July 17, 1997)
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 x x x (2) (b)etween parents and children; x x x." 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. 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. 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.
The allegations of respondent against the character of petitioner, even assuming as true, cannot be taken as sufficient basis to render petitioner an unfit father. The fears expressed by respondent to the effect that petitioner shall be able to corrupt and degrade their children once allowed to even temporarily associate with petitioner is but the product of respondent's unfounded imagination, for no man, bereft of all moral persuasions and goodness, would ever take the trouble and expense in instituting a legal action for the purpose of seeing his illegitimate children. It can just be imagined the deep sorrows of a father who is deprived of his children of tender ages.
It seems unlikely that petitioner would have ulterior motives or undue designs more than a parents natural desire to be able to call on, even if it were only on brief visits, his own children. The trial court, in any case, has seen it fit to understandably provide this precautionary measure, i.e., "in no case (can petitioner) take out the children without the written consent of the mother."
RTC decision reinstated. (Silva vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114742. July 17, 1997)
0 Comments
Post a Comment