G.R. No.

L-23482           August 30, 1968

ALFONSO LACSON, petitioner, 
vs.
CARMEN SAN JOSE-LACSON and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
-----------------------------
G.R. No. L-23767           August 30, 1968
CARMEN SAN JOSE-LACSON, plaintiff-appellant, 
vs.
ALFONSO LACSON, defendant-appellee.
-----------------------------
G.R. No. L-24259           August 30, 1968
ALFONSO LACSON, petitioner-appellee, 
vs.
CARMEN SAN JOSE-LACSON, petitioner-appellant.
August 30, 1968

CASTRO, J.:

Procedural History:
The three consulted cases pertaining to the custody and the voluntary separation of property
.
Facts:
 Alfonso and Carmen were married on February 14, 1953. They had four children. On January 9, 1963
Carmen left the conjugal home in Bacolod and resided in Manila. On March 12, 1963 she filed a complaint in the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC) for custody of all their children as well as support for
them and herself. However, through the assistance of their respective lawyers, the spouses reached an amicable
settlement as to custody of their children, support, and separation of property. On April 27, 1963, they filed a joint
petition with the CFI of Negros Occidental, submitting that they had mutually agreed upon the dissolution of their
conjugal partnership. The terms included a) separation of property, b) all earnings of each spouse shall belong to that
spouse exclusively, c) the custody of the two elder children shall be awarded to Alfonso and the two younger children
to Carmen, d) Alfonso shall compensate Carmen a monthly allowance of P300.00 for the support of the children, and
e) each petitioner shall have reciprocal rights of visitation and every summer the former spouses shall swap the
children. For that particular year, however, Carmen was allowed custody of all four children until June of
1963, when she was supposed to return the two older children to Alfonso’s custody. Finding the foregoing joint
petition as conformable to the law, the CFI issued an order approving their compromise agreement on the very same
day. On May 7, however, Carmen filed a motion with the JDRC alleging that the compromise agreement was the only
way she could get custody of all the children and praying that she be relieved of the agreement pertaining to the
custody and visitation of the children and that she now be awarded full custody. Naturally, Alfonso opposed the
motion and the JDR ruled in his favor. Carmen went to the Court of Appeals and the CA certified the case to the
Supreme Court. Carmen went to the CFI and filed a motion for reconsideration, basically claiming the same thing.
Alfonso opposed. The CFI favored Alfonso and ordered Carmen to return the two older children by June, on pain of
contempt. It is from this decision that the instant case springs. Carmen instituted certiorari proceedings with the CA
against the CFI, saying the CFI committed grave abuse of discretion and acted in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the
immediate execution of the compromise agreement. The CA declared void the portion of the agreement pertaining to
the custody of children.
Issues:
a. Were the assailed compromise agreement and the judgment of the CFI grounded on said agreement
conformable to law?
b. Whether the custody of the four children be granted to the mother?

Answer: a. Yes. b. Yes.

Reasoning:
Only as far as the separation of property of spouses and the dissolution of the conjugal partnership, in
accordance with Article 191 of the Civil Code. The spouses did not appear to have any creditors who would have
been prejudiced by their arrangement. At the time of the decision the spouses had been separated five years
and so the property of severing their financial and proprietary interests was manifest. However, the Court
maintained that approving the separation of property and dissolution of conjugal partnership did not amount to
recognition or legalization of de facto separation. As to the custody of the children, they were all below 7 years of age
at the time of the agreement and CA was correct in awarding the custody to the mother, it violates article 363 of
the Civil Code.

Holding:

"No mother shall be separated from her child under seven years of age, unless the court finds
compelling reasons for such measure."  It is indicated in the second sentence in the new civil code
article 363 Nonetheless, this Court is loath to uphold the couple's agreement regarding the custody of
the children under new civil code article 365. The court views who take of this case, they find it
unnecessary to pass upon the other errors assigned in the three appeals. ACCORDINGLY, the
decision dated May 11, 1964 and the resolution dated July 31, 1964 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. 32384-R (subject matter of G.R. L-23482), and the orders dated May 28, 1963 and June 24,
1963 of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (subject matter of G.R. L-23767) are affirmed.
G.R. L-24259 is hereby remanded to the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental for further
proceedings, in accordance with this decision.