**Facts:**
Joycelyn Pablo-Gualberto filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court challenging a Court of Appeals (CA) decision that favored her husband, Crisanto Rafaelito Gualberto V, in a custody dispute over their nearly four-year-old son, Rafaello. Crisanto initiated a petition for the nullity of his marriage and sought custody pendente lite of their son, alleging that Joycelyn had removed the child from their home. He also raised concerns over Joycelyn’s alleged lesbian relationship, claiming she was unfit to care for their child.
Initially, the Regional Trial Court awarded Crisanto temporary custody based on his testimony and further evidence that Joycelyn allegedly had a lesbian relationship. Joycelyn filed a motion to dismiss and overturn the April 3, 2002 order, citing the principle that children under seven should not be separated from their mothers barring compelling reasons.
Subsequently, the trial court, finding no compelling reason to separate the child from his mother, reversed its order and gave custody to Joycelyn, allowing Crisanto visitation rights every other weekend. Crisanto sought certiorari from the CA to annul this order and reinstate the April 3 decision, which the CA partially granted, returning interim custody to Crisanto.
**Procedural Posture:**
Both spouses filed separate petitions for certiorari. Joycelyn filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA decision on the grounds that custody should default to her under Article 213 of the Family Code unless compelling reasons were found. Crisanto also filed a petition under Rule 65, arguing that the issue of custody pendente lite had been attributed finality by the CA and the trial court had no grounds to change that judgment.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the CA violated Article 213 of the Family Code by awarding custody of the child to the father.
2. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the trial court to consider and hear the motion to lift the award of custody pendente lite.
3. Whether Crisanto’s petition for preliminary mandatory injunction and habeas corpus should be granted to maintain custody.
**Court’s Decision:**
The Supreme Court held that:
– The CA erred in awarding custody to Crisanto given Article 213’s provision that no child under seven should be separated from their mother without compelling reasons. The court found no such compelling justification based on Joycelyn’s alleged lesbian relationship without evidence that it was conducted in presence or knowledge of the child affecting his well-being.
– There was no grave abuse of discretion by the CA as it acted within its powers to direct consideration of relevant motions concerning custody pendente lite.
– Crisanto’s petitions for habeas corpus and preliminary mandatory injunction lacked merit as there was no legal basis to warrant a shift in custody from Joycelyn.
**Doctrine:**
The Court reiterated that under Article 213 of the Family Code, a child under seven should not be separated from the mother unless compelling reasons exist. The overarching principle in custody disputes should always prioritize the best interests of the child, ensuring stability, emotional, educational needs, and overall welfare.
**Class Notes:**
– **Key Legal Concept:** Tender age presumption under Article 213, Family Code – preference for mothers in custody of children under seven absent compelling reasons.
– **Relevant Statutes:** Article 213 of the Family Code and the principle best interest of the child in international law (Convention on the Rights of the Child).
**Historical Background:**
This case reflects the evolving legal standards regarding joint parental authority and the paramount concern for a child’s welfare in custody disputes amidst societal changes including the treatment of alternative sexual orientation in the context of parental suitability.
Leave a Reply