View full case

WILSON SY v. CA

FACTS:

This case involves a custody dispute between petitioner Wilson Sy and respondent Mercedes Tan Uy-Sy over their minor children Vanessa and Jeremiah. Respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus before the trial court, seeking custody of the children and alleging that petitioner is unfit to take care of them. Petitioner, on the other hand, prayed for custody and presented reasons why respondent was unfit to have custody, including abandonment of the family, mental instability, and inability to provide proper care for the children.

After trial, the trial court issued a writ of habeas corpus granting custody of the children to respondent and ordering petitioner to pay monthly support. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, arguing that custody should not have been solely awarded to respondent and that he should not be required to provide support.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no merit in petitioner's arguments. It held that petitioner failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that respondent was unfit to have custody of the children. The appellate court also held that questions regarding the care and custody of children can be raised in a petition for habeas corpus, and that petitioner was given an opportunity to present evidence on the issue of support. The Court of Appeals concluded that the amount awarded as support was reasonable considering that petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of his income.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the custody of the children, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to award support, and the amount of support awarded.

The Supreme Court found no merit in petitioner's arguments regarding custody, citing the relevant provision in the Family Code that favors the mother if she is a fit and proper person to have custody. The Court emphasized the importance of a mother's love and devotion to a child of tender years. The Supreme Court also affirmed the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction to award support in a habeas corpus case and upheld the reasonableness of the amount awarded, considering petitioner's failure to provide sufficient evidence of his income.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court was correct in restoring the custody of the children to the mother.

  2. Whether the trial court was justified in awarding support in favor of the mother.

  3. Whether or not the issue of support was properly raised and tried in the case.

  4. Whether or not the trial court validly rendered a judgment on the issue of support.

  5. Whether or not the amount of P50,000.00 awarded as support for the minor children is justified.

  6. Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 38936 should be affirmed.

  7. Whether the Resolution dated 15 April 1996 of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.

RULING:

  1. The trial court is correct in restoring the custody of the children to the mother. Unless it is shown that the trial court's discretion has been abused, the selection of the custodial parent will not be interfered with. Absent any compelling reason, the preference favoring the mother over the father in custody cases is well-established.

  2. The trial court is justified in awarding support in favor of the mother. Support must be demanded and the right to it established before it becomes payable. In this case, there is no evidence that support for the minor children was ever demanded from their father and the need for it duly established. The need for support cannot be presumed, and in this case, it appears that the minors had means of their own. Therefore, the trial court's award of support is not justified.

  3. The issue of support was properly raised and tried in the case. The respondent testified during the trial regarding the need for support for the children's education and other necessities, and the petitioner was aware that the issue of support was being deliberated upon. Therefore, the trial court validly considered and decided on the issue of support.

  4. The trial court validly rendered a judgment on the issue of support. Applying Section 5, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which states that if an issue is tried with the implied consent of the parties, it should be treated as if it had been raised in the pleadings. In this case, the issue of support was tried with the implied consent of the parties, and therefore, the trial court's judgment on the issue is valid.

  5. The award of P50,000.00 as support for the minor children is justified. Both the trial court and the appellate court found that the petitioner's representations regarding his financial standing provided a fair indication that he is capable of providing for his family. However, the amount of support may be modified in the future depending on the increased or decreased needs of the needy party and the means of the giver.

  6. The decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 38936 and its Resolution dated 15 April 1996 are affirmed. Costs are to be borne by the petitioner.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The preference favoring the mother over the father in custody cases, absent any compelling reason, is well-established.

  • Support must be demanded and the right to it established before it becomes payable. The need for support cannot be presumed.

  • In cases where an issue is tried with the implied consent of the parties, it should be treated in all respects as if it had been raised in the pleadings. (Application of Section 5, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

  • Amendment of pleadings may not be necessary when the evidence adduced at trial shows entitlement to relief other than that asked for in the pleadings, especially when the opposing party raised the point on which recovery was based. (Bank of America v. American Realty Corporation)

  • The rule on amendment need not be applied rigidly, especially where no surprise or prejudice is caused to the objecting party. (Co Tiamco v. Diaz)

  • An award of support is provisional and may be modified or altered in accordance with the increased or decreased needs of the needy party and the means of the giver.

  • The principle of affirming the decision of the lower court or tribunal when there is no reversible error committed in its ruling.