Case Digest (G.R. No. 115640)
Facts:
Reynaldo Espiritu and Guillerma Layug v. Court of Appeals and Teresita Masauding, G.R. No. 115640, March 15, 1995, Supreme Court Third Division, Melo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Reynaldo Espiritu met respondent Teresita Masauding in 1976; she later emigrated to the United States and acquired immigrant status. The parties lived together in a common‑law relationship in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and had two children: Rosalind Therese (born August 16, 1986) and Reginald Vince (born January 12, 1988). The couple were married in the Philippines on October 7, 1987. The relationship soured and they separated in 1990; Teresita returned to California and Reynaldo brought the children to the Philippines, leaving them in the care of his sister, co‑petitioner Guillerma Layug.
On December 8, 1992 Teresita filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Philippines seeking custody of the children. Prior to and during the litigation, expert assessments were made: a psychological evaluation by Rita Flores Macabulos (late 1991) and a social welfare case study by Social Welfare Officer Emma D. Estrada Lopez; both reports reflected Rosalind’s strong preference to stay with petitioners and emotional disturbance attributed to her mother’s conduct. The trial court (Branch 96, RTC, Quezon City, presided by Judge Lucas P. Bersamin) conducted hearings, accepted the expert evidence, and on June 30, 1993 dismissed Teresita’s habeas corpus petition, suspended Teresita’s parental authority over both children, and declared Reynaldo to have sole parental authority with visitation rights to be agreed upon and approved by the court.
The Court of Appeals (per Justice Isnani, with Justices de Pano and Ibay‑Somera concurring) reversed the trial court on February 16, 1994 and awarded custody to Teresita, granting Reynaldo weekend visitation; the appellate court relied heavily on the age‑based presumptions in Article 363 of the Civil Code and Article 213 of the Family Code. Petitioners brought the matter to the Supre...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the trial court’s custody award and granting custody to respondent Teresita Masauding?
- Whether the age presumptions in Article 363 of the Civil Code and Article 213 of the Family Code — particularly the rule favoring the mother of children under seven and the child's choice over seven — required automatic award of custody to the mother in this case?
- Whether the trial court properly received and weighed the expert psychological and social welfare evidence, and is its evaluation of such evi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)