Sagala v CA (G.R. 116773)

FACTS:

On June 22, 1984, petitioner Maria Paz Cordero-Ouye and Reynaldo Eslao were married. After their marriage, the couple stayed with respondent Teresita Eslao, mother of the husband, at 1825, Road 14, Fabie Estate, Paco, Manila. Out of their marriage, two children were begotten, namely, Leslie Eslao and Angelica Eslao.

Leslie was entrusted to the care and custody of petitioner’s mother while Angelica stayed with her parents at respondent’s house. Reynaldo Eslao died. Petitioner intended to bring Angelica with her to Pampanga but the respondent prevailed upon her to entrust the custody of Angelica to her, respondent reasoning out that her son just died and to assuage her grief therefor, she needed the company of the child to at least compensate for the loss of her late son. 

Subsequently, petitioner was introduced to Dr. James Manabu-Ouye, a Japanese-American. Their acquaintance blossomed into a marriage and the petitioner migrated to San Francisco, California, USA, to join her new husband.  The petitioner returned to the Philippines to be reunited with her children and bring them to the United States. The petitioner then informed the respondent about her desire to take custody of Angelica and explained that her present husband, Dr. Ouye, expressed his willingness to adopt Leslie and Angelica and to provide for their support and education;

Respondent resisted the idea by way of explaining that the child was entrusted to her when she was ten days old and accused the petitioner of having abandoned Angelica. 

The lower court rendered its decision ordering respondent to cause the immediate transfer of the custody of the Angelica to her natural mother. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not custody of the daughter should be given to the mother.

RATIO:

Yes. The trial court’s disquisition, in consonance with the provision that the child’s welfare is always the paramount consideration in all questions concerning his care and custody is enough to convince the Court to decide in favor of private respondent.

When private respondent entrusted the custody of her minor child to the petitioner, what she gave to the latter was merely temporary custody and it did not constitute abandonment or renunciation of parental authority. For the right attached to parental authority, being purely personal, the law allows a waiver of parental authority only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a children’s home or an orphan institution which do not appear in the case at bar.

Of considerable importance also, 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.