G.R. No. 266116 - Carnabuci vs. TagaAa-Carnabuci

David H. Carnabuci (David), an Italian citizen, and Harryvette Rowena Tagaaa-Carnabuci (Harryvette) met in 2012, began a relationship, married on January 28, 2013.
They had two minor children: Rocco Antonino Carnabuci, born December 29, 2015, and Zahara Brigitte Carnabuci, born February 23, 2017.
Prior to marriage, Harryvette had two children, Paulyn Nicole TagaAa and Paul Nicolyn Arellano, aged 17 and 15 respectively.

By 2015, marital relations deteriorated; Harryvette alleged physical abuse by David, leading to their separation.
On December 8, 2017, David and Harryvette executed a Memorandum of Agreement granting joint/shared custody of the minor children, with David obliged to pay PHP 2,500,000.00 and provide support only when children were in his custody.

Harryvette left Cebu in 2018, taking minor children to Antipolo City, then went to Paris for work and to be with a new partner.
Returned briefly between March-April 2019, then left again for France, leaving custody to David.
In July 2019, Harryvette returned to Philippines; she and Joselyn Espiritu (her mother) found David left children in care of spouses Ilustrisismo without consent.
August 9, 2019, Harryvette and Joselyn took custody of children in Antipolo City.
Harryvette executed a notarized document authorizing Joselyn as guardian of her children.
October 7, 2019, David demanded custody; Joselyn refused citing her guardianship authority.

RTC found David’s petition for Habeas Corpus with Child Custody sufficient, summoned respondents.
Joselyn granted provisional custody; David allowed visitation with conditions.
Hold Departure Order issued preventing children from leaving Philippines without court permission.
Harryvette and Joselyn argued David lacked financial support capability and accused him of unfitness due to alcohol, smoking, womanizing, and instances of physical violence.
David denied accusations, claimed under Family Code father preferred custodian if mother absent.

MSWD and DSWD tasked to conduct case studies on children and David.
Due to COVID-19, David’s motions to take custody for extended periods were denied; short visits allowed.

Denied David’s petition; granted Harryvette exclusive parental authority and permanent custody.
Allowed Joselyn to exercise immediate custody due to Harryvette’s absence abroad.
David allowed visitation rights with conditions.
David ordered to pay PHP 20,000 monthly support.
RTC considered tender-age presumption favoring mother custody for children under seven (Rocco and Zahara’s ages at the time).
Factors against David: habitual drinking, previous violence, failure to continuously provide support until court intervention, and no evidence Harryvette unfit.

Emphasized custody is not unalterable.
Denied David’s motion for reconsideration.
Denied Harryvette and Joselyn’s motion for children’s travel due to hold departure order.

David challenged CA’s award of joint parental authority and sole custody to Harryvette.
Claimed Harryvette should be considered "absent" under Family Code due to absence abroad.
Argued he is more capable, citing business and visa status.
Disputed Joselyn’s authority for provisional custody.

Whether the CA erred in granting joint parental authority to both parties but sole custody to Harryvette and denying David’s Petition for Habeas Corpus with Child Custody.

Whether Harryvette can be considered "absent" under Article 212 of the Family Code due to her residence abroad.

Whether Joselyn, as maternal grandmother, may exercise provisional parental authority over the children due to Harryvette’s absence.