G.R. No. 43556 - People vs. Espina y Real

The case involves husband and wife, legally married in the Philippines on January 3, 1914.
They have one child, a daughter born on October 16, 1914.

Appellant (the mother) amended her suit for separate maintenance and other relief by including a petition for the custody of the minor daughter, Dora.
A separate hearing was conducted expediently to determine the custody of Dora.
Initially, the trial court awarded custody of the child to the father.

The father discovered a bundle of old letters from 1921, written by a young man named Chambers, which were used to allege that the appellant had committed infidelity.
The trial court found that these letters, along with other testimonies, demonstrated that the appellant was willing to use misleading statements to gain an undue advantage in her suit for support.
Testimonies indicated that the appellant alleged false statements, such as:

Claiming that the husband had abandoned her and relocated to the Army and Navy Club during certain months.
Asserting that the husband authorized her to engage in stock speculations in New York, despite contrary evidence in her diary.

Documentary evidence (Exhibits 52, 52-A, 53, 54, and 56) further illustrated that:

The appellant attempted to exploit the innocence of her daughter by inducing her to view her father negatively.
Despite the daughter’s expressed preference to live with her mother, the trial court noted incidents that reflected on the mother’s questionable moral character.

It was revealed that the appellant removed Dora from school and repeatedly took her to the courtroom to listen to the ongoing parental disputes.
In contrast, the father’s primary objective in seeking custody was to move Dora away from this contentious atmosphere by enrolling her in a young ladies’ school in Switzerland—a plan that had initially been considered during a period of domestic tranquility.

Section 771 of the Code of Civil Procedure was presented as a legal basis, stating that if an offspring is ten years of age or older, they may choose which parent to live with, subject to the condition that the chosen parent is not unfit due to moral depravity, habitual drunkenness, incapacity, or poverty.
In this case, although the minor expressed her preference for the mother, questions arose regarding the mother's fitness due to the alleged evidence of infidelity and perjury.

The case was submitted to the appellate court by stipulation on January 23, 1932.
A subsequent request by the appellant to file an additional memorandum was denied.
On March 14, 1932, the appellant filed a motion for a new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence (affidavits dated May 26, 1931), which the court dismissed as untimely and not materially significant.
The appellate decision affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the father, also imposing costs against the appellant.

Whether the daughter’s expressed preference to live with her mother should control the custody decision given that the child is over ten years of age.
How Section 771’s proviso interacts with the alleged evidence of maternal unfitness.

Is the evidence of infidelity and the alleged misstatements by the appellant sufficient to establish her moral unfitness for the custody of her child?
Whether the old letters and inconsistent testimonies adequately support a finding of moral depravity.

Whether the trial court’s decision, after considering the child’s welfare and the overall evidence, was in accordance with the best interest of the child.

Whether the motion for new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence (affidavits from May 26, 1931) was appropriately filed and meritorious for reconsideration of custody.