Case Digest (G.R. No. 211851)
Facts:
Estacio v. Estacio, G.R. No. 211851, September 16, 2020, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Roberto Estacio y Salvosa and respondent Ma. Victoria Estacio y Santos were married in 1978 and had three children who were adults at the time the case arose. On December 7, 2011, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City a petition for a permanent protection order under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children) with an urgent prayer for a temporary protection order (TPO).The RTC issued an ex parte TPO with several reliefs including a prohibition against acts of violence and harassment, an exclusion order from the conjugal residence, a stay-away directive covering petitioner’s “children” and other household members, and surrender of firearms. Petitioner answered, denied material allegations, and filed a counterclaim for damages, which the RTC subsequently denied in a January 18, 2012 Order that also modified the TPO to more specifically name the adult children and household help and to provide stay-away distances (including a two-kilometer radius and a 500-meter restriction near the village entrance). The TPO was extended during trial and, in a February 20, 2013 Decision, the RTC made the protection order permanent.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), contending principally that the term “children” in RA 9262, Section 3(h) refers only to minors (below 18) or those incapable of self-care, and therefore adult children could not be beneficiaries of the stay-away directive; he also argued that the two-kilometer stay-away radius was excessive and invoked restorative-justice and family-preservation considerations. The CA, in a March 19, 2014 Decision, affirmed the RTC: it held that Section 8(d) of RA 9262 permits designation of “family or household member[s]” without an age limitation; found factual support that petitioner used the children as instruments to harass respondent (including sending derogatory text messages copied to respondent), that the children suffered psychological harm, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the distance.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court. He renewed his contention that RA 9262’s definition of “children” limits coverage to minors or incapacitated adults, asserted that inclusion of adult children severs family relations and should be proven with particular rigor (citing Republic v. Molina), and argued that consent of designated family members is required under the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children. Respondent maintained that the law and the Court’s implementing Rule allow designation of family/household members (in...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May adult children be included as beneficiaries in a stay-away directive under a protection order issued pursuant to Republic Act No. 9...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)