296

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Laxamana vs. Laxamana
*

G.R.No.144763.September3,2002.

REYMOND
B. LAXAMANA, petitioner,
**
LOURDES D.LAXAMANA,respondent.

vs.

MA.

Parent and Child; Custody; In all cases involving the care,

custody and control of minor children, the sole and foremost
consideration is the physical, educational, social and moral welfare
of the child concerned, taking into account the respective resources
as well as social and moral situations of the opposing parents; In
the continual evolution of legalinstitutions, the patria potestas has
been transformed from the jus vitae ac necis (right of life and death)
of the Roman law, under which the offspring was virtually a chattel
of his parents, into a radically different institution, due to the
influence of Christian faith and doctrines.In controversies
involvingthecare,custodyandcontroloftheirminorchildren,the
contending parents stand on equal footing before the court who
shall make the selection according to the best interest of the child.
The child if over seven years of age may be permitted to choose
whichparenthe/shepreferstolivewith,butthecourtisnotbound
bysuchchoiceiftheparentsochosen
_______________
* FIRSTDIVISION.
** AlsoreferredtoasMarilouintherecord.

297

VOL.388,SEPTEMBER3,2002

297

Laxamana vs. Laxamana

is unfit. In all cases, the sole and foremost consideration is the
physical, educational, social and moral welfare of the child
concerned, taking into account the respective resources as well as
social and moral situations of the opposing parents. In Medina u.
Makabali, we stressed that this is as it should be, for in the
continual evolution of legal institutions, the patriot potestas has
beentransformedfromthejus vitae ac necis(rightoflifeanddeath)
oftheRomanlaw,underwhichtheoffspringwasvirtuallyachattel
of his parents, into a radically different institution, due to the
influenceofChristianfaithanddoctrines.Theobligationalaspectis
now supreme. There is no power, but a task; no complex rights of
parents but a sum of duties; no sovereignty, but a sacred trust for

thewelfareoftheminor.
Same; Same; Mindful of the case at bar, the court a quo should
have conducted a trial notwithstanding the agreement of the parties
to submit the case for resolution on the basis, inter alia, of the
psychiatric report.Mindful of the nature of the case at bar, the
court a quo should have conducted a trial notwithstanding the
agreement of the parties to submit the case for resolution on the
basis, inter alia, of the psychiatric report of Dr. Teresito. Thus,
petitioner is not estopped from questioning the absence of a trial
considering that said psychiatric report, which was the courts
primary basis in awarding custody to respondent, is insufficient to
justifythedecision.ThefundamentalpolicyoftheStatetopromote
andprotectthewelfareofchildrenshallnotbedisregardedbymere
technicality in resolving disputes which involve the family and the
youth.Whilepetitionermayhaveahistoryofdrugdependence,the
records are inadequate as to his moral, financial and social well
being. The results of the psychiatric evaluation showing that he is
notyetcompletelycuredmayrenderhimunfittotakecustodyof
the children, but there is no evidence to show that respondent is
unfit to provide the children with adequate support, education, as
wellasmoralandintellectualtraininganddevelopment.Moreover,
thechildreninthiscasewere14and15yearsoldatthetimeofthe
promulgation of the decision, yet the court did not ascertain their
choiceastowhichparenttheywanttolivewith.InitsSeptember8,
1999 order, the trial court merely stated that: The children were
askedastowhethertheywouldliketobewithpetitionerbutthere
areindicationsthattheyentertainfearsintheirheartsandwantto
besurethattheirfatherisnolongeradrugdependent.Thereisno
showing that the court ascertained the categorical choice of the
children. These inadequacies could have been remedied by an
exhaustive trial probing into the accuracy of Dr. Ocampos report
and the capacity of both parties to raise their children. The trial
courtwasremissinthefulfillmentofitsdutieswhenitapprovedthe
agreementofthepartiestosubmitthecasefordecisiononthebasis
ofsketchyfindingsoffacts.
298

298

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Laxamana vs. Laxamana

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionofthe
RegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCity,Br.107.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Ricardo M. Riboforpetitioner.
Jimeno, Jalandoni & Cope Law Offices for private
respondent.
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
Thisisanothersadtaleofanestrangedcouplestugofwar
over the custody of their minor children. Petitioner
Reymond B. Laxamana and respondent Ma. Lourdes D.
Laxamana met sometime in 1983. Petitioner, who came
from a welltodo family, was a graduate of Bachelor of
Laws,whilerespondent,aholderofadegreeinbankingand
finance, worked in a bank. After a whirlwind courtship,

petitioner,31yearsoldandrespondent,33,gotmarriedon
1
June6,1984. Respondent quit her job and became a full
timehousewife.Petitioner,ontheotherhand,operatedbuy
and sell, fishpond, and restaurant businesses for a living.
The union was blessed with three childrentwin brothers
JosephandVincent,bornonMarch15,1985,Michael,born
2
onJune19,1986.
Allwentwelluntilpetitionerbecameadrugdependent.
In October 1991, he was confined at the Estrellas Home
Care Clinic in Quezon City. He underwent psychotherapy
and psychopharmacological
treatment and was discharged
3
on November 16, 1991. Upon petition of respondent, the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 101, ordered
petitioners confinement at4 the NARCOMDRC for
treatmentandrehabilitation. Again, on October 30, 1996,
the trial court granted petitioners voluntary confinement
fortreatmentandrehabilitationattheNationalBureauof
5
InvestigationTRC.
_______________
1Records,p.68.
2Records,pp.6971.
3Records,p.72.
4Records,p.73.
5Records,p.75.

299

VOL.388,SEPTEMBER3,2002

299

Laxamana vs. Laxamana

On April 25, 1997, the court issued an order declaring
petitioneralreadydrugfreeanddirectinghimtoreportto
acertainDr.Casimiroforoutpatientcounselingforsix(6)
6
monthstoone(1)year.
Despite several confinements, respondent claimed
petitionerwasnotfullyrehabilitated.Hisdrugdependence
worsened and it became difficult for respondent and her
children to live with him. Petitioner allegedly became
violentandirritable.Onsomeoccasions,heevenphysically
assaulted respondent. Thus, on June 17, 1999, respondent
andher3childrenabandonedpetitionerandtransferredto
thehouseofherrelatives.
On August 31, 1999, petitioner filed with the Regional
TrialCourtofQuezonCity,Branch107,theinstantpetition7
forhabeas corpusprayingforcustodyofhisthreechildren.
Respondent opposed the
petition, citing the drug
8
dependenceofpetitioner.
Meanwhile, on September 24, 1999, respondent filed a
petitionforannulmentofmarriagewithBranch102ofthe
9
RegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCity.
On September 27, 1999, petitioner filed in the habeas
corpus case,
a motion seeking visitation rights over his
10
children. On December 7, 1999, after the parties reached
anagreement,thecourtissuedanordergrantingvisitation
rights to petitioner and directing the parties to undergo
psychiatricandpsychologicalexaminationbyapsychiatrist

of their common choice. The parties further agreed to

submitthecaseforresolutionafterthetrialcourtsreceiptof
theresultsoftheirpsychiatricexamination.Thefulltextof
saidorderreads:
The parties appeared with their respective lawyers. A conference
was held in open Court and the parties agreed on the following:
EffectivethisSaturdayandeverySaturdaythereafteruntilfurther
order the petitioner shall fetch the children every Saturday and
Sundayat
_______________
6Records,p.160.
7Rollo,p.74.
8Rollo,p.83.
9Rollo,p.31;Records,p.61.
10Records,p.49.

300

300

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Laxamana vs. Laxamana

9:00 oclock in the morning from the house of the sister of

respondent,Mrs.CorazonSorianoandtobereturnedat5:00oclock
intheafternoonofthesamedays.
That the parties agreed to submit themselves to Dr. Teresito
Ocampo for psychiatric/psychological examination. Dr. Ocampo is
hereby advised to go over the records of this case to enable him to
have a thorough background of the problem. He is hereby ordered
to submit his findings directly to this Court without furnishing the
parties copies of his report. And after the receipt of that report,
11
thereafter,thecaseshallbedeemedsubmittedfordecision.

On January 6, 2000, Dr. Ocampo submitted the results of

hispsychiatricevaluationonthepartiesandtheirchildren.
Pertinentportionsthereofstate:
SINGLY and COLLECTIVELY, the following information was
obtainedintheinterviewofthe3children:
(1) THEY were affected psychologically by the drugrelated
behavioroftheirfather:
a .theyhaveadifficulttimeconcentratingontheirstudies.
b. they are envious of their classmates whose families live in
peaceandharmony.
c. once,MICHAELhadtoquitschooltemporarily.
(2) THEY witnessed their father when he was under the
influenceofshabu.
(3) THEY think their father had been angry at their paternal
grandmotherandthisangerwasdisplacedtotheirmother.
(4) THEYhopetheirfatherwillcompletelyandpermanentlyre
cover from his drug habit; and their criteria of his full
recoveryinclude:
a. hewillregainhiseasygoingattitude.

b. hewontbehotheadedanymoreandwouldnotdrivetheir
vanrecklessly.
c. hewouldnottellunverifiablestoriesanymore.
d. hewouldnotpokeagunonhisownheadandaskthechil
drenwhotheylovebetter,momordad.
_______________
11Rollo,p.113.

301

VOL.388,SEPTEMBER3,2002

301

Laxamana vs. Laxamana

(5) At one point one of the sons, became very emotional while
he was narrating his story and he cried. I had to stop the
interview.
(6) THEIR mother was fearful and terrified when their father
quarreledwithher.
(7) THEYhopetheirvisitstotheirfatherwillnotinterferewith
theirschoolandacademicschedules.
xxxxxxxxx
(3) MARILOU is one of 4 siblings. She graduated from college
with a degree in banking and finance. SHE was a carreer
(sic)woman;workedforabankfortenyears;subsequently
quitherjobtodevotemoretimetoherfamily.
(4) REYMOND is one of 5 siblings in a welltodo family. His
fatherwasaphysician.Duringhisdevelopmentalyears,he
recalled how his mother complained incessantly about how
bad the father was; only to find later that the truth was
oppositetothecomplaintsofhismother;thathisfatherwas
nice, logical and understanding. He recalled how he
unselfishlyservedhisfatherheopenedthedoorwhenhe
arrived home; he got his portfolio; he brought the days
newspaper; he removed his shoes; he brought his glass of
beer or his shot of whisky. In short, he served him like a
servant.Hisfatherdiedofstrokein1990.
REYMONDgraduatedfromcollegewithadegreeinLAWin1984;
hedidnotpassthebar.
Hisworkhistoryisasfollows:
a. 1985to1989heoperatedfishponds.
b. 1976to1991simultaneously,heoperatedrestaurant.
c. 1991 he engaged in the trading of vegetable, cooking oil,
andmangos.
d. HE handled the leasing of a family property to a fast food
company.
The findings on the examination of the MENTAL STATUS and
MENTAL PROCESSES OF MARILOU showed a woman who
showedthepsychologicaleffectsofthetraumashehadinthepast.
She is slightly edgy and fidgety with any external noise. SHE
answered all my questions coherently. Her emotional state was
stablethroughouttheinterview.Sheisofaverageintelligence.She
wasorientedtoperson,placeanddate.Hermemoryforrecentand

remoteeventswasintact.Shecouldprocesssetsoffiguresandsets
ofsimilaritiesanddifferences.Hercontentofthoughtwasnegative
for delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, suicidal and homicidal
ideation.Shecouldprocessabstractideasandgeneralinformation.
Her
302

302

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Laxamana vs. Laxamana

attention span was adequate. There was no evidence of impaired

judgment.
The Rorschach ink blot test gave responses such as man
touchingawoman...,2peopleonahifive...,2womenchatting,
. . . beast . . ., stuffed animal . . ., etc. Her past reflected on her
psyche.Thereisnocreativeprocess.Therewerenobizarreideas.
TheZUNGanxiety/depressiontesthighlightedIgettiredforno
reason; I feel that I am useful and needed (reason). There is
moderate depression. However, she could still make competent
decisions.
TheSocialAdaptationScalescoredwellinhercapacitytoadapt
tohersituation.Thereisnoevidenceoflosingcontrol.
The findings on the examination of the MENTAL STATUS and
MENTAL PROCESSES of REYMOND showed an individual who
presented himself in the best situation he could possibly be. He is
cool, calm and collected. He answered all my questions coherently.
Heisofaverageintelligence.Hewasorientedtoperson,placeand
date.Hismemoryforrecentandremoteeventswasintace(sic).His
content of thought was negative for delusions, hallucinations,
paranoia, suicidal and homicidal ideation. His attention span was
adequate. He could process abstract ideas, sets of figures, and
generalinformation.
The Rorschach ink blot test gave responses such as distorted
chest...,butterflywithscatteredcolor...,catranoverbyacar..
.,nothing...2people...,monsteretc.Thereisnocentraltheme
inhisresponses.Therewerenobizarreideas.
TheZunganxiety/depressiontest:Mymindisasclearasitused
to be (most of the time). There was no evidence of brain damage.
There is no significant affective response that would affect his
rationality.
TheSocialAdaptiveScalescoredwellinhiscapacitytoadaptto
his situation. He reached out well to others. He is in very good
controlofhisemotions.
BASEDONMYFINDINGSIMADETHEFOLLOWING
COMMENTSANDCONCLUSIONS:
I. TheCRITERIAforcureindrugaddictionconsistof:
1. 5yearsand10yearsintervalsofdrugfreeperiods.
2. change for the better of the maladaptive behaviors of the
addict consisting of telling lies, manipulative behavior,
melodramaticandhystericalactions.
3. constructive and reproductive outlets for the mental and
physicalenergiesoftheaddict.
303

VOL.388,SEPTEMBER3,2002

303

Laxamana vs. Laxamana

4. behaviororientedtowardsspiritualvaluesandother
things.
II BASED on such scientific and observable
criteria, I do not yet con sider REYMOND
LAXAMANA completely cured even though
his drug urine test at Medical City for
shabu was negative.(Emphasissupplied)
III IDONOTDETECTanyevidencethatthepaternal
visitsofthesonswouldbeharmfulortheywouldbe
in any danger. The academic schedules of the sons
has to be taken into account in determining the
lengthandfrequencyoftheirvisits.
12
xxxxxxxxx.
OnJanuary14,2000,thetrialcourtrenderedtheassailed
decision awarding the custody of the three children to
respondent and giving visitation rights to petitioner. The
dispositiveportionthereofstates:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
rendered:
1.The children, Joseph, Michael and Vincent all surnamed Lax
amana are hereby ordered to remain under the custody of the
respondent.
ThevisitationarrangementasperOrderofDecember7,1999is
herebyincorporatedandformspartofthisDecision.Thepartiesare
enjoinedtocomplywiththetermsstatedtherein.
The petitioner is hereby ordered to undergo urine drug screen
forshabuforthreetimes(3x)permontheveryten(10)days,with
the Dangerous Drugs Board. The said Board is hereby ordered to
submittheresultsofalltestsimmediatelyasdirectedtothisCourt.
The petitioner is hereby referred to undergo regular counseling
at the FreeClinic at the East Avenue Medical Center, Department
of Health Out Patient Psychiatry Department until further order.
For this purpose, it is suggested that he should see Dr. Teresito P.
Ocampotomakearrangementsforsaidcounseling.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Dangerous Drugs
Board and the FreeClinic, Out Patient Psychiatry Department,
East Avenue Medical Center, Department of Health for their
informationandguidance.
13
SOORDERED.
_______________
12Rollo,pp.157161.
13Rollo,pp.3839.

304

304

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Laxamana vs. Laxamana

Aggrieved,petitionerfiledtheinstantpetitionforreviewon
certiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,basedonthe

following:
I
THE COURT A QUO HAS DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED
AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WHEN IT
RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF CUSTODY WITHOUT
CONDUCTINGATRIALTODETERMINEFACTUALISSUES.
II
THE COURT A QUO HAS RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF
CUSTODY IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND
WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE
SUPREME COURT WHEN IT RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF
CUSTODY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PARAMOUNT
INTEREST AND WELFARE OF HEREIN PARTIES THREE (3)
MINORCHILDREN.
Ill
THEASSAILEDDECISIONISNULLANDVOIDASITDOES
NOT COMPLY WITH SECTION 14 ARTICLE VIII OF THE
14
CONSTITUTIONOFTHEREPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES.

The core issue for resolution in the instant petition is

whether or not the trial court considered the paramount
interest and welfare of the children in awarding their
custodytorespondent.
In controversies involving the care, custody and control
of their minor children, the contending parents stand on
equalfootingbeforethecourtwhoshallmaketheselection
accordingtothebestinterestofthechild.Thechildifover
sevenyearsofagemaybepermittedtochoosewhichparent
he/she prefers to live with, but the court is not bound by
suchchoiceiftheparentsochosenisunfit.Inallcases,the
soleandforemostconsiderationisthephysical,educational,
socialandmoralwelfareofthechildconcerned,takinginto
accounttherespectiveresourcesaswellassocialandmoral
15
situationsoftheopposingparents.
_______________
14Rollo,p.20.
15Unson

III v. Navarro, et al.,101SCRA183,189[1980].

305

VOL.388,SEPTEMBER3,2002

305

Laxamana vs. Laxamana

16

InMedina v. Makabali, westressedthatthisisasitshould

be, for in the continual evolution of legal institutions, the
patria potestas has been transformed from the jus vitae ac
necis(rightoflifeanddeath)oftheRomanlaw,underwhich
the offspring was virtually a chattel of his parents, into a
radically different institution, due to the influence of
Christianfaithanddoctrines.Theobligationalaspectisnow
supreme.Thereisnopower,butatask;nocomplexrightsof
parents but a sum of duties; no sovereignty, but a sacred

trustforthewelfareoftheminor.
Mindfulofthenatureofthecaseatbar,thecourta quo
should have conducted a trial notwithstanding the
agreementofthepartiestosubmitthecaseforresolutionon
thebasis,inter alia,ofthepsychiatricreportofDr.Teresito.
Thus, petitioner is not estopped from questioning the
absence of a trial considering that said psychiatric report,
whichwasthecourtsprimarybasisinawardingcustodyto
respondent, is insufficient to justify the decision. The
fundamentalpolicyoftheStatetopromoteandprotectthe
welfare of children shall not be disregarded by mere
technicalityinresolvingdisputeswhichinvolvethefamily
17
andtheyouth. Whilepetitionermayhaveahistoryofdrug
dependence, the records are inadequate as to his moral,
financial and social wellbeing. The results of the
psychiatric evaluation showing that he is not yet
completelycuredmayrenderhimunfittotakecustodyof
the children, but there is no evidence to show that
respondent is unfit to provide the children with adequate
support, education, as well as moral and intellectual
training and development. Moreover, the children in this
case were 14 and 15 years old at the time of the
promulgationofthedecision,yetthecourtdidnotascertain
theirchoiceastowhichparenttheywanttolivewith.Inits
September8,1999order,thetrialcourtmerelystatedthat:
Thechildrenwereaskedastowhethertheywouldliketo
be with petitioner but there are indications that they
entertainfearsintheirheartsandwanttobesurethattheir
18
fatherisnolongeradrugdependent. Thereisnoshowing
thatthecourtascertainedthecategorical
_______________
16 27 SCRA 503, 504 [1969], citing Puig Pena, Derecho

Civil, Vol. 2,

partII,p.153.
17Suarez,supra.
18Rollo,p.82.

306

306

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Laxamana vs. Laxamana

choiceofthechildren.Theseinadequaciescouldhavebeen
remediedbyanexhaustivetrialprobingintotheaccuracyof
Dr.Ocamposreportandthecapacityofbothpartiestoraise
theirchildren.Thetrialcourtwasremissinthefulfillment
ofitsdutieswhenitapprovedtheagreementoftheparties
to submit the case for decision on the basis of sketchy
findingsoffacts.
19
InLacson v. Lacson, thecasewasremandedtothetrial
courtwithrespecttotheissueofcustody.Inthesaidcase,
the court a quo resolved the question of the childrens
custody based on the amicable settlement of the spouses.
Stressing the need for presentation of evidence and a
thoroughproceedings,weexplained
Itisclearthat...everychild[has]rightswhicharenotandshould

not be dependent solely on the wishes, much less the whims and
caprices, of his parents. His welfare should not be subject to the
parents sayso or mutual agreement alone. Where, as in this case,
theparentsarealreadyseparatedinfact,thecourtsmuststepinto
determine in whose custody the child can better be assured the
rights granted to him by law. The need, therefore, to present
evidence regarding this matter, becomes imperative. A careful
scrutinyoftherecordsrevealsthatnosuchevidencewasintroduced
intheCFI.Thislattercourtreliedmerelyonthemutualagreement
of the spousesparents. To be sure, this was not sufficient basis to
determine the fitness of each parent to be the custodian of the
children.
Besides,atleastoneofthechildrenEnrique,theeldestisnow
elevenyearsofageandshouldbegiventhechoiceoftheparenthe
wishestolivewith,xxx.

In the instant case, the proceedings before the trial court

leavemuchtobedesired.Whilearemandofthiscasewould
mean further delay, the childrens paramount interest
demandthatfurtherproceedingsbeconductedtodetermine
the fitness of both petitioner and respondent to assume
custodyoftheirminorchildren.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant
caseisREMANDEDtotheRegionalTrialCourtofQuezon
City, Branch 107, for the purpose of receiving evidence to
determine the fitness of petitioner and respondent to take
custody of their children. Pending the final disposition of
thiscase,custodyshallremain
_______________
1924SCRA837,849850[1968].

307

VOL.388,SEPTEMBER3,2002

307

Sistoza vs. Desierto

withrespondentbutsubjecttopetitionersvisitationrights
inaccordancewiththeDecember7,1999orderofthetrial
court.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), VitugandCarpio, JJ.,
concur.
Case remanded to trial court.
Notes.While it is true that the determination of the
right to the custody of minor children is relevant in cases
where the parents, who are married to each other, are for
some reason separated from each other, it does not follow
thatitcannotariseinanyothersituation.(David vs. Court
of Appeals,250SCRA82[1995])
Thewritofhabeas corpus is the proper legal remedy to
enableparentstoregainthecustodyofaminorchildevenif
thelatterbeinthecustodyofathirdpersonofhisownfree
will.(Tijing vs. Court of Appeals,354SCRA17[2001])

o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.