Banez vs Banez

Facts:

The RTC of Cebu decreed legal separation between Aida and respondent Gabriel on the ground of Sexual
Infedelity. Dissolution of conjugal property and division of net conjugal assets forfeiture of Gabriel’s half
share in the net assets in favour of common children; payment of attorney’s fees and surrender of a
Mazda car and small residential house to petitioner and common children 15 days from receipt of
decision was also decreed by the same court. Respondent appealed.

Aida filed motion for execution pending appeal. The RTC gave due course to execution pending appeal
and issued a writ of execution commanding the sheriff to order the respondent to vacate the house and
surrender the Mazda car. It also ordered the petitioner to post bond to answer for all damages that
respondents may suffer.

The CA set aside the judgment.

Upon motion, Aida prayed that she and her children be allowed to occupy the house for she did not
have the chance to occupy it besides, she posted a bond for damages that respondent may suffer.
Respondent argued that Aida chose not to live in the house for she owned two houses in the United
States where she resides.

Issue:

Whether or not multiple appeals are allowed in the action for legal separation?

Ruling:

No, the issues involved in the legal separation case will necessarily relate to the same marital relationship
between the parties. The effects of legal separation, such as entitlement to live separately, dissolution and liquidation of the
absolute community or conjugal partnership, and custody of the minor children, follow from the decree of legal separation.
They are not separate or distinct matters that may be resolved by the court and become final prior to or apart from the
decree of legal separation. Rather, they are mere incidents of legal separation. Thus, they may not be subject to multiple
appeals.

Cervantes v Fajardo

Facts:

Angelie Cervantes, a minor, was born to respondents Condrado Fajardo and Gina Carreon, who are common-law husband
and wife. Respondents offered the child for adoption to Gina’s sister and brother-in-law, the herein petitioners-spouses
Zenaida Cervantes and Nelson Cervantes. The petitioners took care and custody of the child when she was barely two(2)
weeks old. An affidavit of consent to the adoption of the child by herein petitioners, was also executed by respondent Gina
Carreon. The RTC granted the petition for adoption.

Sometime in 1987, the adoptive parents, received a letter from the respondents demanding to be paid the amount of
P150,000.00 otherwise, they would get back their child. Petitioners refused. As a result, while petitioners were out at work,
Gina took the child from the “yaya” and brought her to the respondents’ house.

Issue:
Whether or not the adoptive parents has the right of custody to the minor.

Ruling:

Yes, in all cases involving the custody, care, education and property of children, the latter's welfare is paramount. The provision that no
mother shall be separated from a child under five (5) years of age, will not apply where the Court finds compelling reasons to rule
otherwise. In all controversies regarding the custody of minors, the foremost consideration is the moral, physical and social welfare of the
child concerned, taking into account the resources and moral as well as social standing of the contending parents.

Besides, the minor has been legally adopted by petitioners with the full knowledge and consent of respondents. A decree of adoption has the
effect, among others, of dissolving the authority vested in natural parents over the adopted child, except where the adopting parent is the
spouse of the natural parent of the adopted, in which case, parental authority over the adopted shall be exercised jointly by both
spouses. The adopting parents have the right to the care and custody of the adopted child and exercise parental authority and
7 8

responsibility over him.

In ascertaining the welfare and best interests of the child, courts are mandated by the Family Code to take into account all relevant
considerations. If a child is under seven years of age, the law presumes that the mother is the best custodian. The presumption is strong but
it is not conclusive. It can be overcome by "compelling reasons". If a child is over seven, his choice is paramount but, again, the court is not
bound by that choice. In its discretion, the court may find the chosen parent unfit and award custody to the other parent, or even to a third
party as it deems fit under the circumstances.

Espiritu vs CA

Facts:

Reynaldo Espiritu and Teresita Masanding began to maintain a common law relationship of husband while in US. Teresita works as a
nurse while Reynaldo was sent by his empolyer, National Steel Corporation, to Pittsburgh for a temporary post. They begot a child in
1986 named Rosalind. After a year, they went back to the Philippines for a brief vacation when they also got married. Subsequently,
they had a second child named Reginald. In 1990, they decided to separate. Reynaldo pleaded for second chance but instead of Teresita
granting it, she left Reynaldo and the children and went back to California. Reynaldo brought the children in the Philippines and left
them with his sister. When Teresita returned in the Philippines sometime in 1992, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against
Reynaldo and his sister to gain custody of the children.

Issue:

WON the custody of the 2 children should be awarded to the mother.

Ruling:

No, in cases of care, custody, education and property of children, the latter’s welfare shall be the paramount concern and that even a
child under 7 years of age may be ordered to be separated from the mother for compelling reasons. The presumption that the mother is
the best custodian for a child under seven years of age is strong but not conclusive. At the time the judgment was rendered, the 2
children were both over 7 years of age. The choice of the child to whom she preferred to stay must be considered. It is evident in the
records submitted that Rosalind chose to stay with his father/aunt. She was found of suffering from emotional shock caused by her
mother’s infidelity. Furthermore, there was nothing in the records to show that Reynaldo is unfit well in fact he has been trying his best
to give the children the kind of attention and care which their mother is not in the position to extend. On the other hand, the mother’s
conviction for the crime of bigamy and her illicit relationship had already caused emotional disturbances and personality conflicts at least
with the daughter.