Sy vs.

CA (2007) Petitioner: Wilson Sy Respondent: Court of Appeals, RTC of Manila, Branch 48, and Mercedes Tan Uy-Sy Facts: Respondent prayed that writ for habeas corpus be issued ordering petitioner to produce their minor children Vanessa and Jeremiah before the court and that after hearing, their care and custody be awarded to her as their mother. In his answer, petitioner prayed that the custody of the minors be awarded to him instead. Petitioner maintained that respondent was unfit to take custody of the minors for the following reasons: (1) respondent abandoned her family in 1992; (2) she is mentally unstable; and (3) she cannot provide proper care to the children. The trial court caused the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and awarded custody of the children to respondent and ordered the petitioner to pay by monthly support for the minors in the amount of P50,000. CA found that respondent had been driven away by petitioners family because of religious differences. Respondents stay in Taiwan likewise could hardly be called abandonment as she had gone there to earn enough money to reclaim her children. Neither could respondents act of praying outdoors in the rain be considered as evidence of insanity as it may simply be an expression of ones faith. Regarding the allegation that respondent was unable to provide for a decent dwelling for the minors, to the contrary, the CA was satisfied with respondents proof of her financial ability to provide her children with the necessities of life. Issue/Held: WON the Court of Appeals erred in awarding the custody of the minor children solely to respondent No

Ratio: In all controversies regarding the custody of minors, the sole and foremost consideration is the physical, educational, social and moral welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the respective resources and social and moral situations of the contending parents. The law favors the mother if she is a fit and proper person to have custody of her children so that they may not only receive her attention, care, supervision but also have the advantage and benefit of a mothers love and devotion for which there is no substitute. Generally, the love, solicitude and devotion of a mother cannot be replaced by another and are worth more to a child of tender years than all other things combined. This preference favoring the mother over the father is even reiterated in Section 6, Rule 99 of the Rules of Court1 (the Rule on Adoption and Custody of Minors). Absent any compelling reason to the contrary, the trial court was correct in restoring the custody of the children to the mother, the children being less than seven years of age, at least at the time the case was decided. Moreover, petitioners contention that respondent is unfit to have custody over the minor children has not been substantiated as found by both courts below.

SEC. 6. Proceedings as to child whose parents are separated. Appeal.When husband and wife are divorced or living separately and apart from each other, and the question as to the care, custody and control of a child or children of their marriage is brought before a Regional Trial CourtNo child under seven years of age shall be separated from its mother, unless the court finds there are compelling reasons therefor.