G.R. No. L-68374 June 18, 1985
HORACIO LUNA and LIBERTY HIZON-LUNA, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ROQUE A. TAMAYO, as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, NCR Branch CXXXII Makati, Metro Manila, MARIA LOURDES SANTOS, and SIXTO SALUMBIDES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Horacio Luna and Liberty Hizon-Luna, a childless couple, took in Shirley Salumbides, the illegitimate daughter of Horacio Luna, when she was a few months old. They raised her with care and affection. In 1980, the natural parents, respondents Maria Lourdes Santos and Sixto Salumbides, refused to consent to Shirley traveling abroad with the petitioners and subsequently refused to return her after the trip. The petitioners filed a habeas corpus case to regain custody. The trial court granted custody to the petitioners, but the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed this, awarding custody to the natural parents. The Supreme Court affirmed this reversal. Upon remand for execution, the petitioners moved to set aside the writ, alleging supervening events concerning Shirley’s welfare.
The petitioners presented evidence, including testimony from Shirley, then nine years old, who expressed a strong desire to stay with the petitioners, threatening self-harm if returned to her natural parents, whom she described as cruel. A child psychologist testified that forcing Shirley to return would cause severe emotional distress and deepen her distrust. Despite this, the respondent judge denied the motion to stop execution, and the Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed this denial. The petitioners thus elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge and the Intermediate Appellate Court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of the final custody judgment despite the alleged supervening events affecting the child’s best welfare.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the challenged resolutions. The legal logic centers on the paramount principle that in all questions regarding the care, custody, and education of children, their welfare shall be the paramount consideration. This principle prevails over the finality of judgments. While the parental preference rule favors natural parents who are fit and proper, it is not absolute and must yield to the child’s best interests. The Court found that the lower courts rigidly adhered to the finality of the prior judgment and the parental preference rule without giving due weight to the compelling supervening circumstances.
The emotional and psychological state of the child, as demonstrated by her sworn testimony and the expert evaluation, constituted a material change in circumstances. The child’s intense opposition and threats of self-harm indicated that enforcement of the judgment would cause severe and irreparable damage to her well-being. The Court held that the lower courts’ refusal to consider these factors, which directly pertained to the child’s physical, emotional, and moral development, amounted to a grave abuse of discretion. Execution in such a context would be unjust and inequitable. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine custody based on the child’s current welfare, with instructions to consider all evidence on the psychological and emotional needs of the child.