Case Digest (G.R. No. L-52242)
Facts:
Miguel R. Unson III v. Hon. Pedro C. Navarro and Edita N. Araneta, G.R. No. 52242, November 17, 1980, Supreme Court Second Division, Barredo, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Miguel R. Unson III sought certiorari to annul an order of respondent judge dated December 28, 1979 that directed petitioner to produce his daughter, Maria Teresa Unson (then about eight years old), return her to the custody of private respondent Edita N. Araneta, and to “continue his support of said daughter by providing for her education and medical needs.” Petitioner alleged the order was issued without a hearing and without reception of testimony in violation of Section 6 of Rule 99.
The parties were married on April 19, 1971; the child was born December 1, 1971. By agreement executed July 13, 1974 (approved by the court in Civil Case No. 7716, decision dated August 23, 1974), the spouses separated their properties and agreed to live separately (they had in fact lived separately since June 1972). The separation agreement contained no specific provision on custody because the parties intended a private arrangement.
Petitioner and private respondent submitted competing affidavits. Petitioner detailed the child’s schooling arrangement (staying with him on schooldays, weekends with mother at times), and narrated circumstances causing him to tighten custody in 1978–1980: private respondent’s cohabitation with her brother-in-law Agustin F. Reyes; Reyes’s confinement for “Manic Depressive” illness (October–December 1977 and June–August 1978); births allegedly fathered by Reyes on September 24, 1978 and May 21, 1980; Reyes being the child’s godfather; and the mother’s change of religious affiliation, which petitioner said would expose the child to an environment alien to her Roman Catholic upbringing. Private respondent’s affidavit asserted she had primarily reared the child, had voluntarily allowed petitioner weekend and vacation custody, that petitioner and both families were aware of her relationship with Reyes, and that the child had been reared in “an atmosphere of Christian love.”
The respondent judge issued the December 28, 1979 order returning the child to the mother and obliging petitioner...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent court have jurisdiction to decide the custody of the child after the decision on the separation of properties became final?
- Was the petitioner denied due process because the respondent judge issued the December 28, 1979 order without a hearing and reception of testimony in violation of Section 6, Rule 99?
- On the merits, was it in the best interest of Maria Teresa that custody be returned to private respondent, or should petitioner retain custody or dominant custody right...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)