GR L 8768; (August, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8768; August 26, 1955
EDUARDO S. FLORES, petitioner, vs. MARIA DE LEON VDA. DE ESTEBAN, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Eduardo S. Flores was married to Adoracion Esteban, who died on December 27, 1953. They had a son, Reynaldo Cenon E. Flores, born on December 22, 1946. After the mother’s death, the child continued to live with his maternal grandmother, respondent Maria de Leon Vda. de Esteban. The petitioner alleges that the respondent restrains the liberty of the minor and refuses to surrender him to his custody. The respondent, in her answer, alleges that she has had custody of the child since he was twenty days old, has supported him, sent him to primary school in Norzagaray, Bulacan, and paid all school expenses. She claims she is not restraining the child’s liberty, but that the child refuses to go with his father, whom he hardly knows. The evidence shows the petitioner has been away from the country since the respondent began caring for the child, and it is the petitioner’s father (the child’s paternal grandfather) who, in fact, claims custody. Both parties are capable of supporting the child.
ISSUE
Who should have legal custody of the minor child, Reynaldo Cenon E. Flores: the paternal grandfather (as substitute for the father) or the maternal grandmother?
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, the maternal grandmother, Maria de Leon Vda. de Esteban. While Articles 349 and 355 of the new Civil Code provide an order for the exercise of substitute parental authority by grandparents (paternal first, then maternal), Article 363 states that in all questions regarding the care and custody of children, the child’s welfare shall be paramount. Considering the child’s welfare, the Court found that the maternal grandmother had acted as a mother to the child since he was twenty days old, there existed mutual love between them, and she had continuously supported and educated him. The child, who was eight years old, refused to go with his father, whom he hardly recognized. Therefore, for the best interest and welfare of the child, legal custody was awarded to the respondent, without prejudice to the father’s obligation to contribute to the child’s maintenance. The petition was dismissed.