View full case

JOYCELYN PABLO-GUALBERTO v. CRISANTO RAFAELITO GUALBERTO V

FACTS:

The case involves two consolidated petitions filed by Joycelyn Pablo-Gualberto and Crisanto Rafaelito Gualberto V. The first petition is a Petition for Review filed by Joycelyn, assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which ordered the custody of their child to be returned to Crisanto. The second petition is a Petition for Certiorari filed by Crisanto, charging the appellate court with grave abuse of discretion for denying his Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the said Decision. The antecedents of the case are as follows: Crisanto filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Joycelyn and also sought custody pendente lite of their child. Crisanto alleged that Joycelyn took the child away from their home and school and abandoned him. The court awarded custody pendente lite to Crisanto based on testimonies and evidence presented, including allegations of Joycelyn's lesbian relations and neglect of the child. However, a later Order reversed the earlier ruling and awarded custody to Joycelyn.

This case involves a custody dispute between Joycelyn Pablo Gualberto (Joycelyn) and Crisanto Gualberto (Crisanto) over their minor son, Crisanto Rafaello P. Gualberto. The case was filed on March 12, 2002, and multiple attempts were made to serve summons on Joycelyn. On March 21, 2002, both Joycelyn's mother and stepfather acknowledged receipt of the summons. The court believed that summons was duly served, and it acquired jurisdiction over Joycelyn.

Joycelyn filed a motion to dismiss on March 26, 2002, which the court opined was an afterthought. The court also noted that under Article 213 of the Family Code, a child under seven years old shall not be separated from the mother unless compelling reasons exist. However, the court found no compelling reasons to deprive Crisanto of the company of his child, although it granted Joycelyn custody of the child and allowed Crisanto to have him every other weekend.

Crisanto filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the trial court's order. The CA ruled partly in Crisanto's favor, stating that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by reversing its previous order awarding custody pendente lite to Crisanto. The CA directed that the child be turned over to Crisanto until the issue was resolved. Both parties filed separate petitions before the Supreme Court, raising various issues related to the custody dispute.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Petition in GR No. 154994 was filed within the deadline allowed by the Rules of Court and by the Supreme Court.

  2. Whether the Petition in GR No. 154994 is premature due to the pending Motion for Partial Reconsideration before the appellate court.

  3. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the trial court judge to consider, hear, and resolve the motion to lift the award of custody pendente lite without any proper motion by Joycelyn and after the trial court's order had become final and executory.

  4. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion for Partial Reconsideration without stating the reasons for the denial.

  5. Whether there are compelling reasons to separate a child under the age of five from their mother.

  6. Whether the mother's immorality, specifically her alleged lesbian relations, constitutes a compelling reason to deprive her of custody.

  7. Whether the sexual orientation of a parent, specifically being a lesbian, is sufficient ground to deprive her of custody of her minor child.

  8. Whether the father has clearly established that the mother's sexual orientation has adversely affected the child's welfare or distracted the mother from exercising proper parental care.

RULING:

  1. The Petition in GR No. 154994 was filed within the deadline allowed by the Rules of Court and by the Supreme Court. The post office stamp on the envelope and the registry receipt showed that the Petition was sent by registered mail on October 24, 2002.

  2. The Petition in GR No. 154994 is not premature. Although a Motion for Partial Reconsideration was pending before the appellate court, the petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file the Petition for Review before the Supreme Court. It was only upon being notified of the filing of the Motion that the petitioner should have manifested that fact to the Supreme Court.

  3. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the trial court judge to consider, hear, and resolve the motion to lift the award of custody pendente lite. The appellate court has the authority to issue such order in the interest of resolving the substantive issues raised by the parties.

  4. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion for Partial Reconsideration without stating the reasons for the denial. The denial of a motion for reconsideration does not always require the court to state the reasons for the denial, as long as the party's rights are not violated.

  5. No, there are no compelling reasons to separate a child under the age of five from their mother, unless the court finds cause to order otherwise.

  6. No, the mother's immorality, specifically her alleged lesbian relations, does not constitute a compelling reason to deprive her of custody.

  7. The Court ruled in favor of the mother and held that she should be granted custody of the child. The Court found that the father failed to demonstrate that the mother's sexual orientation had caused any harm to the child or affected his moral and psychological development. The Court relied on previous cases which established that a parent's moral lapses or illicit activities should have an adverse effect on the child's welfare to justify depriving the parent of custody. In this case, there was no evidence that the child was exposed to the mother's alleged sexual proclivities or that his moral and psychological development suffered as a result.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Timeliness of the filing of pleadings, motions, and other papers may be determined by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt. (Section 3, Rule 13, Rules of Court)

  • The date of filing may be shown either by the post office stamp on the envelope or by the registry receipt. (Section 3, Rule 13, Rules of Court)

  • Proof of filing is shown by the existence of the petition in the record. (Section 12, Rule 13, Rules of Court)

  • The appellate court has the authority to order the trial court judge to consider, hear, and resolve a motion in the interest of resolving the substantive issues raised by the parties.

  • The denial of a motion for reconsideration does not always require the court to state the reasons for the denial, as long as the party's rights are not violated.

  • A court of competent jurisdiction is vested with the authority to resolve even unassigned issues, especially when such step is indispensable or necessary to a just resolution of the pleaded issues. The relief granted that has been specifically prayed for may also be considered.

  • Verification is required under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court only when relief is sought from a final and executory order. The court may set aside its own orders even without a proper motion when it is warranted by the rules and to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

  • The requirement to state clearly and distinctly the reasons for the disposition in Section 1 of Rule 36 refers only to decisions and final orders on the merits, not those resolving incidental matters.

  • The award of temporary custody is provisional and subject to change as circumstances may warrant. The award of child custody after a judgment on a marriage annulment is not permanent and may be reexamined and adjusted if the parent given custody becomes unfit.

  • Article 213 of the Family Code provides that parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the court in case of separation of the parents. The court shall take into account all relevant considerations and the choice of the child over seven years old, unless the chosen parent is unfit. No child under seven years old shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise. The welfare of the child is paramount in questions on custody. The general rule is that children under seven years old shall not be separated from their mother, unless there are compelling reasons for such measure.

  • The best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children.

  • The tender-age presumption under Article 213 of the Family Code may be overcome only by compelling evidence of the mother's unfitness, such as neglect, abandonment, unemployment, immorality, habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity, or affliction with a communicable disease.

  • Sexual preference or moral laxity alone does not prove parental neglect or incompetence.

  • To deprive a parent of custody, it must be clearly established that their moral lapses or illicit activities have adversely affected the welfare of the child or distracted the parent from exercising proper parental care.

  • The sexual orientation of a parent, on its own, is not sufficient ground to deprive them of custody.

  • The court may consider psychological reports and case studies on the child to determine the effect of the parent's actions on the child's emotional well-being.

  • The court's personal observations and assessment of the child's behavior in the presence of each parent carry more weight than mere reliance on the records.