GR 114742; (July, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997
CARLITOS E. SILVA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SUZANNE T. GONZALES, respondents.
FACTS
Carlitos E. Silva, a married businessman, and Suzanne T. Gonzales, an unmarried actress, cohabited without marriage and had two illegitimate children, Ramon Carlos and Rica Natalia. They eventually parted ways. In February 1986, Gonzales refused to allow Silva to have the children on weekends, contravening a previous understanding. Silva filed a petition for custodial rights before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Gonzales opposed, alleging Silva engaged in “gambling and womanizing” detrimental to the children’s morals. The RTC, on April 7, 1989, granted Silva visitorial rights on Saturdays and/or Sundays, provided he could not take the children out without Gonzales’s written consent. Only Gonzales appealed. Meanwhile, Gonzales married a Dutch national and emigrated to Holland with the children. The Court of Appeals, on September 23, 1993, reversed the RTC, denying Silva’s visitorial rights. It held that rotating custody between the mother and the father (who lived with another woman) would be morally and emotionally detrimental to the illegitimate children’s upbringing, citing the paramount consideration of the child’s welfare under Article 8 of P.D. 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code). Silva elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the father of illegitimate children should be denied visitorial rights over them.
RULING
The Supreme Court REINSTATED the decision of the trial court, REVERSING the Court of Appeals. It ruled that Silva, as a parent, possesses an inherent and natural right of access to his children. While the child’s welfare is paramount, the few hours of visitation on weekends granted by the RTC would not be detrimental. The Court recognized that parental rights and duties, including companionship, extend beyond legitimate relationships, as supported by the Constitution, the Family Code provisions on family relations (Article 150), parental authority (Articles 209, 220), and even provisions on nullity of marriages (Article 49). The allegations against Silva’s character were insufficient to declare him an unfit father or to deny his fundamental right to see his children. The precautionary measure imposed by the RTC—requiring written consent from the mother to take the children out—adequately addressed any potential concerns.