GR L 10544; (August, 1956) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10544; August 30, 1956
NEIL S. MURDOCK, SR. and LILIANE E. MURDOCK, petitioners-appellants, vs. HORACIO CHUIDIAN, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
The petitioners, Neil S. Murdock, Sr. and Liliane E. Murdock, are the paternal grandparents and citizens of the United States. They filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to secure the custody of their two minor grandchildren, Robert Murdock and Elizabeth Constance Murdock, aged 4 and 2 years respectively. The minors are the legitimate children of Neil S. Murdock, Jr. (a U.S. citizen) and Belen Chuidian (a Filipino citizen), both of whom died in a fire on November 26, 1955. After the parents’ death, the respondent, Horacio Chuidian, who is the maternal grandfather and a resident of the Philippines, took the minors into his house and has cared for them since. The petitioners invoked Articles 349 and 355 of the new Civil Code, claiming they are entitled to exercise substitute parental authority over the minors in preference to the maternal grandfather. They argued that as U.S. citizens, the minors should be in the custody of the paternal grandparents and that it is for the minors’ best interest and welfare to be brought up by them. The respondent, in his return, argued that while Article 355 provides an order of preference, it applies only if no circumstances show that the minors’ welfare would be better served by entrusting them to grandparents not in the stated order. The parties agreed that both the petitioners and the respondent have the financial ability to support the minors. The respondent testified that the petitioners are residents of the United States and have never been to the Philippines, and that sending the minors to the U.S. would work hardship on them. The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed the petition, finding that the minors’ welfare would be best served by allowing the maternal grandfather to continue caring for them.
ISSUE
Whether the custody of the minor children should be awarded to the paternal grandparents in accordance with the order of preference in Article 355 of the new Civil Code, or to the maternal grandfather based on the welfare of the minors.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. The Court held that while the order of preference in Article 355 of the new Civil Code is mandatory when no special circumstances exist, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor children. If it appears that the minors’ welfare would be best served by having their custody left with the maternal grandfather, his substitute parental authority should prevail over that of the paternal grandparents. The trial court’s conclusion that the minors’ welfare would be best subserved by the maternal grandfather was upheld, as there was no reason to disturb it. The decree dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed, without costs.