Vancil v Belmes (G.R 132223)

FACTS:

Petitioner, Bonifacia Vancil, is the mother of Reeder C. Vancil, a Navy serviceman of the United States of America who died in the said country on December 22, 1986. During his lifetime, Reeder had two children named Valerie and Vincent by his common-law wife, Helen G. Belmes.

Sometime in May 1987, Bonifacia Vancil commenced before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City a guardianship proceedings over the persons and properties of minors Valerie and Vincent. At the time, Valerie was only 6 years old while Vincent was 2 years old. Petitioner was appointed legal and judicial guardian over the persons and estate of Valerie Vancil and Vincent Vancil Jr.

On August 13, 1987, the natural mother of the minors, Helen Belmes, submitted an opposition to the subject guardianship proceedings asseverating that she had already filed a similar petition for guardianship before the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City.

On October 12, 1988, the trial court rejected and denied Belmes’ motion to remove and/or to disqualify Bonifacia as guardian of Valerie and Vincent Jr. and instead ordered petitioner to enter the office and perform her duties as such guardian upon the posting of a bond of P50,000.00.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision reversing the RTC.

ISSUE:

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

RULING:

            The respondent, being the natural mother of the minor, has the preferential right over that of petitioner to be his guardian.  This ruling finds support in Article 211 of the Family Code which 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.”

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