Facts:
Bonifacia Vancil,
is the mother of Reeder C. Vancil, a US Navy serviceman who died on 1986. During his lifetime,
Reeder had two children named Valerie and Vincent by his common-law wife, Helen
G. Belmes.
Bonifacia obtained
a favorable court decision appointing her as legal and judicial guardian over
the persons and estate of Valerie and Vincent.
On August 13, 1987, Helen submitted an opposition to the subject
guardianship proceedings asseverating that she had already filed a similar
petition for guardianship before the RTC of Pagadian City.
On June 27, 1988, Helen followed her opposition with a motion for the
Removal of Guardian and Appointment of a New One, asserting that she is the
natural mother in actual custody of and exercising parental authority over the
subject minors at Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur where they are
permanently residing. She also states that at the time the petition was
filed, Bonifacia was a resident of Colorado, U.S.A. being a naturalized
American citizen.
On October 12,
1988, the trial court rejected and denied Helen’s motion to remove and/or to
disqualify Bonifacia as guardian of Valerie and Vincent Jr.
Since Valerie had
reached the age of majority at the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the
issue revolved around the guardianship of Vincent.
Issue:
Who between the
mother and grandmother of minor Vincent should be his guardian?
Held:
Respondent Helen Belmes, being the
natural mother of the minor, has the preferential right over that of
petitioner Bonifacia to
be his guardian. Article 211 of the Family Code provides:
"Art. 211. The father and the
mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their
common children. In case of disagreement, the father’s decision shall prevail,
unless there is a judicial order to the contrary. xxx."
Indeed, being the natural mother of
minor Vincent, Helen has the corresponding natural and legal right to his
custody.
"Of
considerable importance is the rule long accepted by the courts that ‘the right
of parents to the custody of their minor children is one of the natural rights
incident to parenthood,’ a right supported by law and sound public policy. The
right is an inherent one, which is not created by the state or decisions of the
courts, but derives from the nature of the parental relationship." (Sagala-Eslao
vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 317 [1997])
Bonifacia contends that she is more qualified
as guardian of Vincent.
Bonifacia’s claim to be the guardian of said
minor can only be realized by way of substitute parental
authority pursuant to Article 214 of the Family Code, thus:
"Art. 214. In case of death,
absence or unsuitability of the parents, substitute parental authority shall be
exercised by the surviving grandparent. xxx."
In Santos, Sr. vs. Court of
Appeals (242 SCRA 407 (1995), this Court ruled:
"The
law vests on the father and mother joint parental authority over the persons of
their common children. In case of absence or death of either parent, the
parent present shall continue exercising parental authority. Only in case
of the parents’ death, absence or unsuitability may substitute parental
authority be exercised by the surviving grandparent."
Bonifacia, as the surviving grandparent, can
exercise substitute parental authority only in case of death, absence or
unsuitability of Helen. Considering that Helen is very much alive and has
exercised continuously parental authority over
Vincent, Bonifacia has to prove, in asserting her
right to be the minor’s guardian, Helen’s unsuitability. Bonifacia,
however, has not proffered convincing evidence showing that Helen is not suited
to be the guardian of Vincent. Bonifacia merely
insists that Helen is morally unfit as guardian of Valerie considering that her
live-in partner raped Valerie several times. But Valerie, being now of major
age, is no longer a subject of this guardianship proceeding.
Even assuming that Helen is unfit as
guardian of minor Vincent, still Bonifacia cannot qualify as a substitute
guardian. She is an American citizen and a resident of Colorado. Obviously, she
will not be able to perform the responsibilities and obligations required of a
guardian. In fact, in her petition, she admitted the difficulty of discharging
the duties of a guardian by an expatriate, like her. To be sure, she will
merely delegate those duties to someone else who may not also qualify as a
guardian.
There is nothing in the law which
requires the courts to appoint residents only as administrators or guardians.
However, notwithstanding the fact that there are no statutory requirements upon
this question, the courts, charged with the responsibilities of protecting the
estates of deceased persons, wards of the estate, etc., will find much
difficulty in complying with this duty by appointing administrators and
guardians who are not personally subject to their jurisdiction. Notwithstanding
that there is no statutory requirement, the courts should not consent to the
appointment of persons as administrators and guardians who are not personally
subject to the jurisdiction of our courts here. (Bonifacia Vancil vs. Helen
G. Belmes, G.R. No. 132223, June 19, 2001).
0
Comments
