G.R. No. 266116, July 22, 2024
FACTS: On October 16, 2019, David filed the Petition for Habeas Corpus praying that an order be issued directing respondents Harryvette Rowena Tagaña-Carnabuci (Harryvette), Joselyn B. Espiritu (Joselyn) and “John Does” to produce the bodies of his and Harryvette’s two minor children, Rocco Antonio Carnabuci (Rocco) and Zahara Brigitte Carnabuci (Zahara). At the time of filing, they were 3 and 2 years old, respectively.
On January 28, 2013, David and Harryvette got married. Eventually, Rocco and Zahara were born. Sometime in 2015, David and Harryvette’s marital relations crumbled. Harryvette alleged that David would physically abuse her, leading to the eventual separation.
In 2018, Harryvette left Cebu and brought their minor children with her to Antipolo City. David claimed that sometime after, Harryvette left for Paris, France to find work and to be with her new partner. A year later, Harryvette returned to the Philippines to introduce her new partner to her family and their minor children. After, Harryvette again left for France and turned over the custody of their minor children to David.
In July 2019, Harryvette returned to the Philippines. During that time, she and her mother, Joselyn, learned that David went to Thailand for 12 days and left Rocco and Zahara in the care of spouses Illustrisismo in Bantayan, Cebu without Harryvette’s knowledge and consent.
Harryvette then executed a notarized deed document dated September 4, 2019, authorizing Joselyn to act as the guardian of her children upon her return to Paris.
On October 7, 2019, David visited Rocco and Zahara in Antipolo City and demanded their custody from Joselyn. However, Joselyn refused his plea and insisted that she has a better right of custody than David pursuant to the authority granted her by Harryvette.
According to petitioner, respondent Harryvette is unable to fulfill her duty to their minor children. Therefore, he should exercise both parental authority and custody as he is present in the country.
ISSUE: Whether respondent Harryvette, an overseas Filipino worker, should be stripped of her sole custody of her minor children because she is considered “absent” from the country.
RULING: The Supreme Court ruled in the NEGATIVE. The mere fact that a parent is an overseas Filipino worker does not deprive them of their right to exercise parental authority or sole custody.
In Espiritu vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court granted the award of custody over minor children to the petitioner, their father, who was temporarily assigned abroad for work. This is owing to the principle of the best interest of the child as the minor children grew accustomed to the care of their father through their aunt.
Respondent Harryvette is still able to exercise sole custody through the grant of provisional custody to respondent Joselyn. This springs from respondent Harryvette’s right under Article 213 of the Family Code as their mother and thus, is effective only while she is away. Considering that the courts found Harryvette entitled to exercise sole custody over the minor children, she can ask Joselyn to look after them in the exercise of such right.
Between respondent Joselyn and petitioner, it is Joselyn who can better give her full and undivided attention to the minor children and provide them with an environment most conducive to their development. This is as opposed to the latter who was deemed unfit, being a habitual drinker and smoker, and who has previously exhibited violent tendencies.
THE BARRISTER 