G.R. Nos. L-23482, L-23767 and L-24259 August 30, 1968
Case Parties:

Alfonso Lacson, petitioner, vs. Carmen San Jose-Lacson and The Court of Appeals, respondents. (L-23482)
Carmen San Jose-Lacson, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Alfonso Lacson, defendant-appellee. (L-23767)
Alfonso Lacson, petitioner-appellee, vs. Carmen San Jose-Lacson, petitioner-appellant. (L-24259)

FACTS

Alfonso Lacson (petitioner spouse) and Carmen San Jose-Lacson (respondent spouse) were married in 1953 and had four children. On January 9, 1963, the respondent spouse left the conjugal home. She filed a complaint in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC) of Manila for custody and support. The spouses, through their attorneys, reached an amicable settlement. They filed a joint petition in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Negros Occidental on April 27, 1963, seeking judicial approval for the dissolution of their conjugal partnership and separation of property under Article 191 of the Civil Code. The agreement included: (a) separation of property with the wife waiving claims; (b) exclusive ownership of future earnings; (c) custody of the two elder children (Enrique and Maria Teresa) to the father and the two younger (Gerrard and Ramon) to the mother; (d) a monthly allowance of P300 from the father for the children in the mother’s custody; and (e) reciprocal visitation rights, with all four children to be with the mother until June 15, 1963, after which the two elder children would be returned to the father. The CFI approved this compromise agreement in toto.
Subsequently, the respondent spouse filed a motion in the JDRC to be relieved from the custody and visitation agreement, alleging she signed it only to gain immediate custody. The JDRC dismissed her case on grounds of res judicata and lis pendens. She appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-23767). She also filed a motion for reconsideration of the CFI’s compromise judgment. The CFI denied her motion, granted the petitioner spouse’s motion for execution, and ordered her to deliver the two elder children by June 29, 1963, under threat of contempt. She appealed this order, and the Court of Appeals also certified it to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-24259). Additionally, the respondent spouse filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 32384 -R) challenging the CFI’s order for immediate execution as a grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals granted her petition, declaring null and void the compromise judgment regarding custody and visitation and the execution order. The petitioner spouse appealed this decision to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-23482).

ISSUE

The fundamental common issue in all three cases is whether the compromise agreement entered into by the spouses and the CFI judgment based on it are valid and conformable to law, particularly with respect to the provisions on custody of minor children.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the compromise agreement and the CFI judgment are valid with respect to the separation of property but null and void with respect to the custody of the minor children. The agreement on custody contravenes Article 363 of the Civil Code, which provides that no mother shall be separated from her child under seven years of age, unless the court finds compelling reasons for such separation. At the time of the agreement, all four children were below seven years old. The law uses the mandatory word “shall,” indicating an imperative rule of public policy designed to protect the welfare of very young children. The spouses cannot, by mutual agreement, waive this legal protection. The matter of custody must be adjudicated by the proper court based on the best interests of the child, not by parental compromise. The Court also noted that the stipulated monthly support of P150 per child may be insufficient, and the CFI may increase it according to the children’s needs.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court:
1. Affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA- G.R. No. 32384 -R (G.R. L-23482) annulling the custody and visitation provisions and the execution order.
2. Affirmed the orders of the JDRC (subject of G.R. L-23767).
3. Remanded G.R. L-24259 to the CFI of Negros Occidental for further proceedings to determine the proper custody of the children in accordance with the law.