Case Summary (G.R. No. 266116)
Applicable Law
The case is governed by the provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines, specifically Articles 211, 213, and related laws regarding child custody and parental authority. Given that the decision date is July 22, 2024, the appropriate legal framework is based on the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Background of the Case
The proceedings originated when David filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus on October 16, 2019, seeking the custody of his and Harryvette's minor children, who were aged three and two at that time. David and Harryvette met in 2012, married in 2013, and had two children. Their marriage deteriorated amidst allegations of physical abuse purportedly committed by David. In December 2017, they executed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding joint custody and child support, which later became contentious as their relationship soured.
Court Proceedings and Legal Findings
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted provisional custody to Joselyn while allowing David visitation rights. David argued for his right to custody, citing the principles enshrined in the Family Code favoring fathers in custody discussions when mothers are deemed unfit. However, Harryvette countered with allegations against David, describing him as an unfit parent due to habitual drinking and previous incidents of violence. Ultimately, the RTC ruled in favor of Harryvette, granting her exclusive parental authority over the children but provisioned custody to Joselyn while permitting David limited visitation rights.
Court of Appeals' Ruling
David appealed the RTC's decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which modified the RTC's ruling. The CA ruled that both parents would share joint parental authority but that Harryvette would retain sole custody owing to her status as the mother under Article 213 of the Family Code. The CA emphasized that custody should not be viewed as permanent and could be revisited as circumstances changed.
Supreme Court's Assessment
David subsequently filed a petition with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA's ruling, particularly contesting the issuance of joint parental authority and the designation of sole custody to Harryvette. He argued that Harryvette's absence rendered her unfit to maintain custody. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of assessing custody through the lens of the best interest of the child. It highlighted that Harryvette maintained an active role in her children's lives from abroad, providing regular financial support and communication, which negated claims of her being "absent" in the legal sense.
Final Determination
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the CA's modification of the RTC ruling. It ruled that David and Harryvette should jointly exercise parental authority, while Harryvette would
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 266116)
Background and Factual Context
- David H. Carnabuci (David), an Italian citizen, and Harryvette Rowena TagaAa-Carnabuci (Harryvette), met in 2012 and married in 2013.
- They have two minor children, Rocco Antonino Carnabuci (born 2015) and Zahara Brigitte Carnabuci (born 2017).
- Harryvette had two other children prior to marriage, aged 17 and 15 respectively at the time.
- Their marital relations deteriorated in 2015, with allegations of physical abuse by David leading to separation.
- David and Harryvette executed a Memorandum of Agreement in 2017 for joint custody and child support, specifying payment terms and custody arrangements.
- Harryvette left for abroad (France) to work, leaving the minor children under David’s care and later with their maternal grandmother, Joselyn B. Espiritu (Joselyn).
Petition for Habeas Corpus and Custody Proceedings
- In October 2019, David filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus seeking custody of their two minor children, alleging unauthorized removal and detention.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued summons, provisional custody to Joselyn, and visitation rights to David with conditions.
- A Hold Departure Order was issued by RTC to prevent children’s departure without court permission until the age of seven.
Allegations and Counterclaims
- Harryvette and Joselyn countered, asserting David’s incapacity to provide financially, his habitual drinking, smoking, womanizing, and neglect.
- They alleged David endangered the children and impeded communication with Harryvette.
- David denied these allegations and emphasized his rights as father and joint parental authority under the Family Code.
Case Studies and Social Welfare Reports
- RTC ordered social welfare studies from Antipolo City and Bantayan Island.
- Findings favored Joselyn’s capability to care for minors and highlighted Harryvette’s constant communication and financial support despite living abroad.
RTC Decision on Custody (February 9, 2022)
- The RTC denied David’s petition, awarded exclusive parental authority and permanent custody to Harryvette.
- Provisional custody granted to Joselyn during Harryvette’s absence.
- David granted visitation rights subject to conditions regarding timing, accompaniment, and territorial limits.
- David ordered to provide monthly child support of PHP 20,000, with accounting obligations imposed on Joselyn.
- The Hold Departure Order was maintained.
- RTC cited tender-age presumption (children under 7 not to be separated from mother) and findings of parental unfitness (David’s abuse, neglect, and failure to provide support).
Court of Appeals (CA) Modification (December 12, 2022)
- CA partly granted David’s appeal, modifying parental authority to joint between Harryvette and David.
- Affirmed sole custody to Harryvette but with qualification that custody is not "permanent" or unalterable.
- Confirmed provisional custody to Joselyn due to Harryvette’s abroad status