Facts
On 16 October 2019, David filed the Petition for Habeas Corpus, praying that an order be issued directing respondents to produce the bodies of his and Harryvette’s two minor children, Rocco and Zahara.
Sometime in 2012, David, an Italian citizen, met Harryvette in La Union, and they began a romantic relationship. Later, they flew to Santa Fe, Bantayan Island in the Province of Cebu. Sometime in 2015, David and Harryvette’s marital relations crumbled. Haryvette alleged that David would physically abuse her, leading to their eventual separation.
In 2018, Harryvette left for Paris, France to find work. A year later, Harryvette returned to the Philippines with her new partner. Afterward, Harryvette again left for France and turned over the custody of their minor children to David.
In July 2019, Harryvette returned to the Philippines. During that time, she and her mother, Joselyn, learned that David went to Thailand for 12 days and left their children in the care of some couple in Bantayan, Cebu, without Harryvette’s knowledge and consent.
Later on, Harryvette then executed a notarized document dated September 4, 2019, authorizing Joselyn to act as the guardian of her children upon her return to Paris.
On 7 October 2019, David visited Rocco and Zahara and demanded their custody from Joselyn. However, Joselyn refused his plea and insisted that she had a better right of custody than David pursuant to the authority granted her by Harryvette.
The RTC denied David’s petition and granted Harryvette exclusive parental authority over the minors and allowed only visitation rights to David.
The CA partly granted David’s appeal, declaring that he and Harryvette have joint parental authority over their minor children. Nonetheless, it upheld the RTC’s award of provisional custody to Joselyn and the grant of visitation rights to David.
Hence, this Petition.
In his Petition, David argues that the CA should have awarded them joint custody over the children as Article 213 of the Family Code does not explicitly confer to the mother sole parental authority or sole custody. David likewise contends that Harryvette should be considered “absent” within the contemplation of Art. 212 of the same Code for being away from her place of usual residence.
Ruling
On the issue of custody,
The SC affirms the award of sole custody over the minor children to respondent Harryvette.
Contrary to David’s claims, Harryvette cannot be considered “absent” in contemplation of Art. 212 of the Family Code.
In line with the case of Espiritu, it does not follow that the parent who is in close proximity to the minor child is the most suitable to be entrusted with their care. As applied here, the mere fact that a parent is an overseas Filipino worker does not deprive them of their right to exercise parental authority or sole custody.
Respondent has not been remiss in exercising her right to parental authority and custody over their minor children despite being overseas. Respondent makes a continuous effort to communicate with their children and watch them through a CCTV system. She is also able to financially support them.
Respondent Harryvette is likewise able to exercise sole custody through the grant of provisional custody to respondent Joselyn. This springs from the respondent’s right under Art. 213 of the Family Code as their mother, and thus, is effective only while she is away.
Between respondent Joselyn and Petitioner, it is Joselyn who can better give her full and undivided attention to the minor children and provide them with an environment most conducive to their development. This is as opposed to the latter, who was deemed unfit, being a habitual drinker and smoker, and who has previously exhibited violent tendencies.