A child’s interest is paramount

Remember what I wrote about last week regarding the grandparents’ right to substitute parental authority over their grandchildren? As per the law, if the mother of an illegitimate child dies, the grandparents take over. In the case I cited last week, however, the Supreme Court explained further that this is not a hard and fast rule. The Highest Tribunal ruled in the case:

“Nonetheless, the foregoing clarification should not be understood to disqualify the father of illegitimate children automatically and absolutely from exercising substitute parental authority in case of the death, absence, or unsuitability of the mother. Indeed, case law in fact recognizes that the father of an illegitimate child may exercise substitute parental authority and be given custody in situations where he is the ‘child’s actual custodian,’ as provided under Article 216 of the Family Code.

“Ultimately, in all questions involving the care and custody of minors, it is axiomatic that their welfare and well-being are always the paramount consideration. For this reason, Section 14 of the Rule on Custody of Minors enumerates factors that must be considered in determining the issues of custody. These include: the child’s material and moral welfare, health and safety; the nature and frequency of contact with both parents; habitual use of alcohol, dangerous drugs, or regulated substances; the most suitable physical, emotional, spiritual, psychological, and educational environment for the holistic development and growth of the minor; and the preference of the minor over seven years of age and of sufficient discernment, unless the parent chosen is unfit.

“In this case, it is undisputed that Catherine was not married to the respondent. Thus, the sole parental authority, including custody, over her illegitimate son, Winston, resided with her pursuant to Article 176 of the Family Code. Upon Catherine’s death, the collateral grandparents of Winston took actual custody of the latter and exercised parental authority over him pursuant to Articles 214 and 216 of the same Code.

“To be sure, the grant of substitute parental authority that includes custody to petitioners under Articles 214 and 216 of the Family Code is not final and absolute. As with support, the determination of who will exercise substitute parental authority and custody over a minor is not final and irrevocable. It may be subject to the proper determination of a court of competent jurisdiction, taking into consideration, among others, the parameters enumerated in Section 14 of the Rule on Custody of Minors, and the various measures provided under existing laws and rules, such as the conduct of a case study, in order to effectively and thoroughly facilitate the determination of the most suitable environment for the well-being and safety of the minor.

“Here, there is undeniably an apparent dearth of supporting reasons in the trial court’s ruling with respect to the existence of such facts, circumstances, and conditions that are most congenial for Winston’s survival, protection, and feelings of security, encouraging his physical, psychological and emotional development. Indeed, the RTC ruling failed to consider such factors enumerated in Section 14 of the Rule on Custody of Minors as the ‘health, safety, and welfare of [Winston],’ the ‘habitual use of alcohol, dangerous drugs, or regulated substances,’ the ‘most suitable physical, emotional, spiritual, psychological, and educational environment for [Winston’s] holistic development and growth,’ and ‘Winston’s preference,’ including any circumstances that may be detrimental to Winston’s growth and development, in resolving to award custody to the respondent. …”

A word of caution. The foregoing pronouncement should not be interpreted to imply a preference toward petitioners relative to the custody of the minor, Winston, nor should it be taken to mean as a statement against the respondent’s fitness to have custody over his son. It shall only be understood that, for the present and until appropriately and finally adjudged, the custody over Winston pendente lite may not be properly awarded to the respondent.”

Ultimately, in all questions involving the care and custody of minors, it is axiomatic that their welfare and well-being are always the paramount consideration.

What is the takeaway? While the law provides who may have substitute parental authority, ultimately courts must still determine who and what is best for the child. As the Supreme Court said, the interest of the child is the paramount consideration.

Spouses Magdalino Gabun et al. v. Winston Clark Stolk, Sr. (GR No. 234660, 26 June 2023).