10/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 275 new

604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Silva vs. Court of Appeals

 
*
G.R. No. 114742. July 17, 1997.

CARLITOS E. SILVA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF

APPEALS and SUZANNE T. GONZALES, respondents.

Parent and Child; Custody; Words and Phrases; Visitation

right is the right of access of a noncustodial parent to his or her
child or children.—The issue before us is not really a question of
child custody; instead, the case merely concerns the visitation
right of a parent over his children which the trial court has
adjudged in favor of petitioner by holding that he shall have
“visitorial rights to his children during Saturdays and/or Sundays,
but in no case (could) he take out the children without the written
consent of the mother

______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

605

VOL. 275, JULY 17, 1997 605

Silva vs. Court of Appeals

x x x.” The visitation right referred to is the right of access of a

non-custodial parent to his or her child or children.
Same; Same; Illegitimate Children; There is nothing
conclusive to indicate that the constitutional and legal provisions
on the natural right and duty of parents are meant to solely
address themselves to legitimate relationships.—There is, despite
a dearth of specific legal provisions, enough recognition on the
inherent and natural right of parents over their children. Article
150 of the Family Code expresses that “(f)amily relations include
those x x x (2) (b)etween parents and children; x x x.” Article 209,

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d9b254e648fa6ec34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
10/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 275 new

in relation to Article 220, of the Code states that it is the natural

right and duty of parents and those exercising parental authority
to, among other things, keep children in their company and to
give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship
and understanding. The Constitution itself speaks in terms of the
“natural and primary rights” of parents in the rearing of the
youth. There is nothing conclusive to indicate that these
provisions are meant to solely address themselves to legitimate
relationships. Indeed, although in varying degrees, the laws on
support and successional rights, by way of examples, clearly go
beyond the legitimate members of the family and so explicitly
encompass illegitimate relationships as well. Then, too, and most
importantly, in the declaration of nullity of marriages, a situation
that presupposes a void or inexistent marriage, Article 49 of the
Family Code provides for appropriate visitation rights to parents
who are not given custody of their children.
Same; Same; In all cases involving a child, his interest and
welfare is always the paramount consideration.—There is no
doubt that in all cases involving a child, his interest and welfare
is always the paramount consideration. The Court shares the
view of the Solicitor General, who has recommended due course to
the petition, that a few hours spent by petitioner with the
children, however, could not all be that detrimental to the
children.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Agcaoili Law Offices for petitioner.
     German S. Gonzales, Sr. for private respondent.

606

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Silva vs. Court of Appeals

VITUG, J.:

 
Parents have the natural right, as well as the moral and
legal duty, to care for their children, see to their proper
upbringing and safeguard their best interest and welfare.
This authority and responsibility may not be unduly denied
the parents; neither may it be renounced by them. Even
when the parents are estranged and their affection for each
other is lost, the attachment and feeling for their offsprings
invariably remain unchanged. Neither the law nor the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d9b254e648fa6ec34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
10/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 275 new

courts allow this affinity to suffer absent, of course, any

real, grave and imminent threat to the well-being of the
child.
The petition bears upon this concern.
Carlitos E. Silva, a married businessman, and Suzanne
T. Gonzales, an unmarried local actress, cohabited without
the benefit of marriage. The union saw the birth of two
children: Ramon Carlos and Rica Natalia. Not very long
after, a rift in their relationship surfaced. It began,
according to Silva, when Gonzales decided to resume her
acting career over his vigorous objections. The assertion
was quickly refuted by Gonzales who claimed that she, in
fact, had never stopped working throughout their
relationship. At any rate, the two eventually parted ways.
The instant controversy was spawned, in February 1986,
by the refusal of Gonzales to allow Silva, in apparent
contravention of a previous understanding, to have the
children in his company on weekends. Silva filed a petition
for custodial rights over the children before the Regional
Trial Court (“RTC”), Branch 78, of Quezon City. The
petition was opposed by Gonzales who averred that Silva
often engaged in “gambling and womanizing” which she
feared could affect the moral and social values of the
children.
In an order, dated 07 April 1989, the trial court
adjudged:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered

directing respondent to allow herein petitioner visitorial rights to
his children during Saturdays and/or Sundays, but in no case
should he

607

VOL. 275, JULY 17, 1997 607

Silva vs. Court of Appeals

take out the children without the written consent of the mother or
1
respondent herein. No pronouncement as to costs.”

 
Silva appeared somehow satisfied with the judgment for
only Gonzales interposed an appeal from the RTC’s order to
the Court of Appeals.
In the meantime, Gonzales got married to a Dutch
national. The newlyweds emigrated to Holland with Ramon
Carlos and Rica Natalia.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d9b254e648fa6ec34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
10/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 275 new

On 23 September 1993, the appellate tribunal ruled in

favor of Gonzales; it held:

“ ‘In all questions, regarding the care, custody, education and

property of the child, his welfare shall be the paramount
consideration’—not the welfare of the parents (Art. 8, PD 603).
Under the predicament and/or status of both petitioner—appellee
and respondent-appellant, We find it more wholesome morally
and emotionally for the children if we put a stop to the rotation of
custody of said children. Allowing these children to stay with their
mother on weekdays and then with their father and the latter’s
live-in partner on weekends may not be conducive to a normal up-
bringing of children of tender age. There is no telling how this
kind of set-up, no matter how temporary and/or remote, would
affect the moral and emotional conditions of the minor children.
Knowing that they are illegitimate is hard enough, but having to
live with it, witnessing their father living with a woman not their
mother may have a more damaging effect upon them.

 
“Article 3 of PD 603, otherwise known as the Child and
Youth Welfare Code, provides in part:

“ ‘Art. 3. Rights of the Child.—x x x

‘(1) xxx
‘(2) xxx
‘(3) xxx
‘(4) xxx
‘(5) Every child has the right to be brought up in an
atmosphere of morality and rectitude for the enrichment and
the strengthening of his character.

______________

1 Rollo, p. 29.

608

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Silva vs. Court of Appeals

‘(6) xxx
‘(7) xxx
‘(8) Every child has the right to protection against
exploitation, improper influences, hazards and other
conditions or circumstances prejudicial to his physical,
mental, emotional, social and moral development.
‘x x x’

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d9b254e648fa6ec34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
10/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 275 new

“With Articles 3 and 8 of PD No. 603, in mind, We find it to the

best interest of the minor children, to deny visitorial and/or
temporary custodial rights to the father, even at the expense of
hurting said parent. After all, if indeed his love for the children is
genuine and more divine than the love for himself, a little self-
sacrifice and self-denial may bring more benefit to the children.
While petitioner-appellee, as father, may not intentionally
prejudice the children by improper influence, what the children
may witness and hear while in their father’s house may not be in
keeping with the atmosphere of morality and rectitude where
they should be brought up.
“The children concerned are still in their early formative years
of life. The molding of the character of the child starts at home. A
home with only one parent is more normal than two separate
houses—(one house where one parent lives and another house
where the other parent with another woman/man lives). After all,
under Article 176 of the Family Code, illegitimate children are
supposed to use the surname of and shall be under the parental
authority of their mother.
“The child is one of the most important assets of the nation. It
is thus important we be careful in rearing the children especially
so if they are illegitimates, as in this case.
“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is
hereby rendered giving due course to the appeal. The Order of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City dated April 7, 1989 is hereby
reversed. Petitioner-appellee’s petition for visitorial rights is
hereby denied.
2
“SO ORDERED.”

 
Silva comes to this Court for relief.

_______________

2 Rollo, pp. 22-23.

609

VOL. 275, JULY 17, 1997 609

Silva vs. Court of Appeals

 
The issue before us is not really a question of child
custody; instead, the case merely concerns the visitation
right of a parent over his children which the trial court has
adjudged in favor of petitioner by holding that he shall
have “visitorial rights to his children during Saturdays
and/or Sundays, but in no case (could) he take out the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d9b254e648fa6ec34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
10/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 275 new

children without the written consent of the mother x x x.”

The visitation right referred to is the right of access
3
of a
noncustodial parent to his or her child or children.
There is, despite a dearth of specific legal provisions,
enough recognition on the inherent and natural right of
parents over their children. Article 150 of the Family Code
expresses that “(f)amily relations include those x x x (2)
(b)etween parents and children; x x x.” Article 209, in
relation to Article 220, of the Code states that it is the
natural right and duty of parents and those exercising
parental authority to, among other things, keep children in
their company and to give them love and affection, advice
and counsel, companionship and understanding. The
Constitution itself speaks in terms of the “natural and4
primary rights” of parents in the rearing of the youth.
There is nothing conclusive to indicate that these
provisions are meant to solely address themselves to
legitimate relationships. Indeed, although in varying
degrees, the laws on support and successional rights, by
way of examples, clearly go beyond the legitimate members
of the family and so 5
explicitly encompass illegitimate
relationships as well. Then, too, and most importantly, in
the declaration of nullity of marriages, a situation that
presupposes a void or inexistent marriage, Article 49 of the
Family Code provides for appropriate visitation rights to
parents who are not given custody of their children.
There is no doubt that in all cases involving a child, his
interest and welfare is always the paramount
consideration. The Court shares the view of the Solicitor
General, who has

______________

3 See Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p. 1572.

4 Art. II, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution.
5 Arts. 176, 195 Family Code.

610

610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Silva vs. Court of Appeals

recommended due course to the petition, that a few hours

spent by petitioner with the children, however, could not
all be that detrimental to the children. Similarly, what the
trial court has observed is not entirely without merit; thus:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d9b254e648fa6ec34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
10/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 275 new

“The allegations of respondent against the character of

petitioner, even assuming as true, cannot be taken as sufficient
basis to render petitioner an unfit father. The fears expressed by
respondent to the effect that petitioner shall be able to corrupt
and degrade their children once allowed to even temporarily
associate with petitioner is but the product of respondent’s
unfounded imagination, for no man, bereft of all moral
persuasions and goodness, would ever take the trouble and
expense in instituting a legal action for the purpose of seeing his
illegitimate children. It can just be imagined the deep sorrows of a
6
father who is deprived of his children of tender ages.”

 
The Court appreciates the apprehensions of private
respondent and their well-meant concern for the children;
nevertheless, it seems unlikely that petitioner would have
ulterior motives or undue designs more than a parent’s
natural desire to be able to call on, even if it were only on
brief visits, his own children. The trial court, in any case,
has seen it fit to understandably provide this precautionary
measure, i.e., “in no case (can petitioner) take out the
children without the written consent of the mother.”
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is
REINSTATED, reversing thereby the judgment of the
appellate court which is hereby SET ASIDE. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ.,

concur.
Hermosisima, Jr., J., On leave.

Judgment reversed and set aside, that of the court a quo

reinstated.

______________

6 Rollo, p. 29.

611

VOL. 275, JULY 17, 1997 611

Pono vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Notes.—A marriage though void still needs a judicial

declaration of such fact under the Family Code even for
purposes other than remarriage. (Domingo vs. Court of
Appeals, 226 SCRA 572 [1993])
An unrecognized spurious child has no rights from his
parents or to their estate. (Ilano vs. Court of Appeals, 230
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d9b254e648fa6ec34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
10/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 275 new

SCRA 242 [1994])

Of the different categories of illegitimate children under
the old Civil Code, the natural child occupies the highest
position, she being the child of parents who, at the time of
her conception, were not disqualified by any impediment to
marry each other. (Alberto vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA
745 [1994])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d9b254e648fa6ec34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8