G.R. No. 268643 - Santos vs. Republic

Case Summary (G.R. No. 268643)

Petitioner

Rosa filed a petition for guardianship over Juliana, asserting she had raised Juliana since the child’s birth, served as the child’s primary caregiver and financial provider, paid for schooling and therapies related to Juliana’s ADHD, and enjoyed a mother–child relationship with Juliana. She later married and relocated to the United Kingdom, but retained Philippine citizenship and a spousal visa and argued she remained available to exercise guardianship duties.

Respondent and Interested Parties

The Republic appeared through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which adopted its earlier arguments before the Court of Appeals and ultimately supported recognition of petitioner’s fitness. Julius, Juliana’s father, did not oppose the petition and expressly consented to and supported petitioner’s appointment. Rosalinda, the grandmother and actual custodian in the Philippines, testified regarding the longstanding caretaking arrangement.

Key Dates

Birth of Juliana: September 17, 2008.
Death of Juliana’s mother (Jemyleen Rose Agustin): September 18, 2008.
Petition for guardianship filed with the RTC: December 8, 2017.
RTC Decision denying guardianship: January 14, 2020.
Court of Appeals Decision affirming denial: July 20, 2023.
Supreme Court Decision (granting petition and ordering issuance of letters of guardianship): June 10, 2024.

Applicable Law and Precedents

Constitutional basis: 1987 Constitution, Article XV, Section 3(2) (State duty to protect children’s rights). Statutory and rule sources: Family Code provisions on parental authority and substitute parental authority (Articles 216 and related provisions) and the Rule on Guardianship of Minors (A.M. No. 03‑02‑05‑SC, 2003), particularly Section 5 (factors to consider). Relevant precedents cited and applied include Francisco v. Court of Appeals (definition and standards for guardianship), Vancil v. Belmes and Guerrero v. Teran (principles on appointing guardians outside the jurisdiction), Santos v. Court of Appeals, Espiritu v. Court of Appeals, and other controlling authorities referenced by the courts.

Procedural History

Petitioner’s guardianship petition was denied by the Regional Trial Court on the ground that her residence abroad rendered her unavailable to exercise custodial duties, invoking the Vancil doctrine that courts should not appoint guardians outside the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on A.M. No. 03‑02‑05‑SC and Vancil. Petitioner then sought review by the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Issue Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of the petition for guardianship in favor of petitioner Rosa Nia D. Santos.

Standard of Review

The Supreme Court recognized the general Rule 45 limitation that factual questions are not ordinarily reconsidered. However, it noted exceptions where the lower courts’ findings are based on misapprehension of facts or where facts relied upon in the petition are undisputed; under those circumstances the Court may revisit factual determinations. The Court found such exceptions applicable here and proceeded to review the record.

Governing Legal Principles on Guardianship

The Court reiterated that guardianship is a trust relation of the most sacred character intended to further the ward’s well‑being. Selecting a guardian requires assessment of multiple factors: financial situation, physical and mental condition, moral character, relationship of trust with the minor, availability to perform guardian duties for the needed period, absence of conflict of interest, and ability to manage the minor’s property. The paramount criterion is the best interests of the child, consistent with the 1987 Constitution and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 3), which the Court treats as a controlling interpretive principle where relevant.

Application of Law to the Facts

The Court concluded that the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner guardianship. The record established that petitioner had been Juliana’s primary caregiver and sole financial supporter since the child’s birth, had paid for medical and therapeutic needs and education, and had a de facto parent–child relationship with Juliana. Witness testimony (grandmother, godmother, uncle) and the court social worker’s Social Case Study corroborated petitioner’s central role and uncontroverted fitness to serve as guardian. The father’s lack of material and emotional support and his expressed consent to petitioner’s guardianship were relevant factual considerations supporting appointment of petitioner. The Court emphasized that the selection of guardian must serve the child’s welfare and that petitioner’s demonstrated devotion, continued involvement, and practical steps taken to preserve contact and provide care weighed heavily in favor of recognizing her as legal guardian.

Distinction from Vancil v. Belmes and Guerrero v. Teran

The Court distinguished Vancil and Guerrero on the facts. In Vancil, the proposed guardian was a naturalized U.S. citizen and resident who had not exercised custody, was of advanced age, and had other factors rendering the guardian unlikely to be able to perform duties in the Philippines; relief was rightly denied there. In contrast, petitioner here retained Philippine citizenship, maintained a spousal visa (allowing facile travel to the Philippines), had a long history of actual custody and caregiving from the child’s birth, and faced no opposition from the biological parent. Thus, the Vancil proscription against appointing guardians outside the jurisdiction did not apply automatically; the Court held that residence or temporary physical separation alone does not demonstrate incapacity to discharge guardianship duties.

Availability Factor and Best‑Interest Analysis

Interpreting A.M. No. 03‑02‑05‑SC’s availability requirement, the Court cautioned against construing it as requiring continuous physical proximity. Availability must be assessed holistically—considering willingness, practical ability, and the totality of actions the prospective guardian has taken to fulfill the child’s needs. The Court found petitioner’s pattern of travel, daily communications, episodes of bringing the child to the United Kingd

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 268643)

Case Caption, Court and Decision

G.R. No. 268643; Decision promulgated June 10, 2024 by the Supreme Court, Second Division.
Title as presented: "ROSA NIA D. SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT."
Decision authored by Justice M. Lopez, with Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurring.
The case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) judgment affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denial of a petition for guardianship.

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Rosa Nia D. Santos (also referred to as Rosa Nia Santos-Galman and Rosa Nia Galman in parts of the rollo) — aunt of the minor and applicant for guardianship.
Ward/Subject Minor: Juliana Rose A. Oscaris (Juliana), born September 17, 2008.
Mother of the minor (deceased): Jemyleen Rose Agustin (Jemyleen), died September 18, 2008.
Father of the minor: Julius Oscaris (Julius) — biological father who, according to the record, was largely absent and who later manifested support for petitioner’s guardianship.
Co-resident and actual custodian prior to guardianship proceedings: Rosalinda Danao (Rosalinda) — petitioner’s mother and the minor’s grandmother.
Respondent: Republic of the Philippines; Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a manifestation accepting arguments previously raised before the CA.
Other persons referenced: Jeremy Galman (Jeremy) — petitioner’s husband, a solicitor based in London who accompanied and supported petitioner; witnesses and social worker who provided testimony and a Social Case Study.

Antecedent Facts (Factual Background)

Juliana was born on September 17, 2008 at Perpetual Succor Hospital Maternity, Inc., Sampaloc, Manila. Her mother, Jemyleen, died the day after Juliana’s birth (September 18, 2008).
After Jemyleen’s burial, Rosa and Rosalinda mutually agreed to take full responsibility for raising Juliana; Juliana lived with them at 746 Ballesteros Street, Mandaluyong City from birth until the present events in the record.
Julius, Juliana’s father, was unemployed at the time and did not provide financial support; he neither regularly visited nor maintained constant communication with Juliana and only contacted Rosa on certain occasions to seek financial help.
Rosa financed Juliana’s daily needs, schooling, and therapy. Juliana was diagnosed with symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) at age 2 and received therapy until age 5; Rosa paid for therapy and other expenses (tuition, tutorials, books, uniforms, transport, allowance, extracurricular classes such as ballet, art, and Kumon).
Rosa married Jeremy on May 1, 2017 and thereafter relocated to the United Kingdom. Jeremy encouraged and supported her filing of the guardianship petition and intended to assist in raising Juliana.
Despite relocation, Rosa maintained de facto parental authority and a close mother-like relationship with Juliana; she retained Philippine citizenship and maintained travel flexibility via a spousal visa rather than applying for full UK residency.
Rosa maintained communication with Juliana (daily video calls during separations) and at some periods brought Juliana and Rosalinda to the United Kingdom for months.

Procedural History

December 8, 2017: Rosa filed a Petition for guardianship in the RTC, docketed Spec. Proc. No. R-MND-17-04300-SP, praying for appointment as guardian of Juliana (Juliana was 9 years old when petitioned).
January 14, 2020: RTC, Branch 277, Mandaluyong City, presiding judge Anthony B. Fama, issued a Decision denying the Petition for guardianship. The RTC relied on Vancil v. Belmes and concluded Rosa’s residence in the UK rendered her unable to exercise actual custody and personal care for Juliana.
July 20, 2023: Court of Appeals (Fourth Division, penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with concurrence) affirmed the RTC decision. The CA relied on A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC (Rule on Guardianship of Minors, 2003) and Vancil, concluding Rosa’s residence abroad suggested she would likely delegate duties and thus was unavailable to render proper care for the full guardianship period. The CA denied the appeal for lack of merit.
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court was filed by Rosa, challenging the CA affirmance.

Issue Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Decision denying the Petition for guardianship in favor of petitioner Rosa Nia D. Santos.

Legal Standards and Authorities Cited

Constitutional Mandate: 1987 Constitution, Article XV, Section 3(2) — State must defend the right of children to assistance, proper care and nutrition, and special protection from neglect, abuse, and other conditions prejudicial to development.
Parental Authority and Nature of Guardianship:
- Parental authority described as a mass of rights and obligations for children’s preservation, development, education (Santos v. CA).
- Guardianship described as a trust of the most sacred character, designed for the ward’s well-being and preservation of their property, and one in loco parentis responsibilities (Francisco v. CA).
Factors to consider in appointing a guardian (Francisco v. CA; A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC Section 5):
- Financial situation; physical condition; sound judgment, prudence, trustworthiness; morals and character; present and past history; probability of ability to exercise powers and duties for full guardianship period.
- Section 5 of the Rule on Guardianship lists qualifications including: (a) moral character; (b) physical, mental, and psychological condition; (c) financial status; (d) relationship of trust with the minor; (e) availability to exercise powers and duties for full guardianship period; (f) lack of conflict of interest; (g) ability to manage the minor’s property.
Best Interests of the Child Principle:
- Permeates adoption, support, personal status, minors in conflict, custody, guardianship; anchored on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 3) — best interests must be the primary consideration in all actions concerning children.
Precedent on appointment of guardians outside court jurisdiction:
- Vancil v. Belmes (and earlier Guerrero v. Teran) cautioned against appointing guardians not personally subject to Philippine jurisdiction because courts may find it difficult to protect the wards; Vancil involved a naturalized American petitioner who resided in Colorado, had never exercised actual custody, was of advanced age, and had a conviction — circumstances distinguishing Vancil’s facts from the instant case.
Rules on substitute parental authority and preference:
- Family Code Article 216: order of persons who exercise substitute parental authority in default of parents or judicially appointed guardian — surviving grandparent, oldest sibling over 21, child’s actual custodian over 21.
- Civil Code Articles 349-350 set predecessor recognition of guardians and supervision role.

Petitioner’s Main Arguments (Contentions)

The denial of the Petition was detrimental to Juliana’s best interests.
Petitioner had de facto parental authority since Juliana’s birth, treated and was treated as a mother by the minor, and provided continuous unconditional love, care, attention, and stability.
Petitioner was the primary financial provider, paying for schooling, therapies, and extracurricular activities; she remained of full civil capacity and had no criminal convictions.
Petitioner retained Philippine citizenship and maintained travel flexibility; she did not renounce capacity to return and personally attend to Juliana’s needs and thus Vancil is inapplicable.
Julius, the biological father, never as