Photo from Unsplash | Nienke Burgers
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In the case of Carnabuci v. Tagaña-Carnabuci, the Supreme Court held that Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) may still exercise parental authority and even sole custody over their children despite being assigned abroad. The mere fact that a parent is an OFW does not deprive them of their right to exercise parental authority or sole custody.
FACTS: Sometime in 2012, petitioner David H. Carnabuci met respondent Harryvette in La Union and began a romantic relationship. They flew to Cebu where David resided and ran a restaurant business. By January 28, 2013 the pair got married and eventually had children of their own. Rocco Antonino Carnabuci (Rocco) was born on December 29, 2015 and later on had Zahara Brigitte Carnabuci (Zahara) on February 23, 2017. However, sometime in 2015, the pair’s marital relations crumbled. Respondent Harryvette alleged that the petitioner would physically abuse her, leading to their eventual separation.
To settle disputes regarding the custody of their minor children, Harryvette and David executed a Memorandum of Agreement dated December 08, 2017. In 2018, Harryvette left Cebu with their minor children to Antipolo City. Sometime after, petitioner claimed that Harryvette left for Paris, France to find work and be with her new partner. A year later, around March and April 2019, Harryvette returned to the Philippines to introduce her new partner. Harryvette once again left for France and turned over the custody of their minor children to David. In July of that same year, Harryvette and her mother (Joselyn) learned that David left for Thailand leaving their minor children in the care of the spouses Ilustrisismo without her knowledge and consent.
In August 2019, respondents, Harryvette and Joselyn went to Cebu to take the minor children to stay in the latter’s house in Antipolo, City. On September 04, 2019, Harryvette notarized a document authorizing her mother, Joselyn B. Espiritu to act as the guardian of her minor children upon her return to Paris, France. On October 07, 2019, petitioner visited their minor children in Antipolo and demanded custody from Joselyn. However, Joselyn refused and insisted that she had a better right to the custody of the minor children than David.
Petitioner then filed the Petition for Habeas Corpus before the RTC which was then found sufficient in form and substance. On even date, the RTC issued an Order granting Joselyn provisional custody of the minor children, however, the petitioner was allowed to have unlimited visitations under certain conditions. Then on October 30, 2019, the RTC issued a Hold Departure Order directing the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation not to allow the departure of Rocco and Zahara from the Philippines without its permission.
In the answer of the respondents, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that David was incapable, which is also the reason why Harryvette left to work abroad. Aside from not being able to provide financial support, the two claimed that David endangered the lives of their minor children as he cannot provide them with a healthy living environment as he is a habitual drinker, chain smoker, and a womanizer. Photographs of Rocco drinking from a beer bottle were also posted online, showing that David was irresponsible. Furthermore, David would hire nannies and housekeepers to take care of the children but would abruptly let go of them for unknown reasons. Petitioner would also prevent Harryvette’s communication with their children.
In his reply, David denied the allegations made against him and argued that under Articles 211 and 212 of the Family Code, it is the father who is preferred to take custody of the minor children in the absence of the mother and not the maternal grandmother. As a result, RTC issued an order directing the MSWD of Antipolo to submit a case study report on the minor children and all other persons related to them, as well as a report and recommendation within 30 days from notice. The DSWD of Bantayan, Cebu were likewise directed to make a case study and submit a comprehensive report on petitioner along with its respective recommendation.
David filed for another motion for the temporary custody of the minor children. Resolving the case on its merits, RTCissued a Decision granting Harryvette not only exclusive parental authority and care over Rocco and Zahara, but also permanent custody of them. In arriving at its decision the RTC took into consideration the best interest of the children and the factors they found on petitioner. The RTC ruled that as David and Harryvette have been separated in fact since 2019 and that both Rocco and Zahara are under the age of seven – Article 213 of the Family Code is the applicable law. Hence, the custody of the minor children were awarded to Harryvette. However, due to Harryvette’s absence from the country, the RTC allowed Joselyn B. Espiritu to exercise immediate custody and parental authority over the minor children. Aggrieved, petitioner filed for a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied in a Resolution. He then appealed to CA. In the assailed Decision, the CA partly granted the appeal and modified RTC’s Decision.
ISSUE:
- Whether respondent Harryvette can be considered absent under Article 212 of the Family Code
- Whether respondent Joselyn may exercise provisional authority over the children, as their maternal grandmother due to Harryvette’s absence
RULING:
1. No. Respondent Harryvette cannot be considered “absent” in contemplation of Article 212 of the Family Code.
As found by the RTC and the CA, respondent Harryvette returned to the Philippines to visit their children three times since 2018, which contravenes David’s claim that her absence is permanent. Further, it was found that respondent Harryvette makes a continuous effort to communicate with their children and watches them through the CCTV system installed in Joselyn’s home despite being away for work. She was also able to financially support them, providing around PHP 50,000.00 to PHP 60,000.00 for their daily needs. Petitioner also failed to prove that respondent Harryvette is unfit as a mother to divest her custody over their minor children.
2. No. Petitioner also failed to prove that respondent Harryvette is unfit as a mother to divest her custody over their minor children.
Although the situation at hand is peculiar, in the sense that the parent who was awarded custody cannot physically exercise custody over the minor children, it is by no means a novel one.
The Supreme Court held that 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.
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.
Source:
David H. Carnabuci vs. Harryvette Rowena Tagaña – Carnabuci et. al.
G.R. No. 266116 | July 22, 2024
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
