Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

FORMER NINTH (9th) DIVISION

****
MARIA ARMEL TORRES-SAN CA-G.R. CV No. 114091
PEDRO,
Petitioner-Appellee, Members:
-versus- SORONGON, E.D.,
Chairperson,
JOSE CHRISTIAN DE DIOS
ATAL-PAÑO, P.S.T, and
SAN PEDRO, *PASCUA, B.S., J.J.
Respondent,

REPUBLIC OF THE Promulgated: 15 AUG 2022

PHILIPPINES, ______________________
Oppositor-Appellant.
x--------------------------------------------- --------------x
RESOLUTION
SORONGON, E.D., J. :

Per Decision1 dated December 14, 2021, the Court granted the appeal 2
instituted by oppositor-appellant Republic of the Philippines, through the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and declared valid and subsisting the
marriage between petitioner-appellee Maria Armel Torres-San Pedro
(Armel) and respondent Jose Christian De Dios San Pedro (Christian).

Armel filed a Manifestation with Motion for Clarification/Motion for

Partial Reconsideration3 where she conceded that there is insufficient
evidence to support her action to declare her marriage with Christian null
and void on the ground of lack of marriage license. 4 Nevertheless, she seeks
a clarification as to the custody of their child. She maintains that the ruling
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 209, in
Civil Case No. MC-12-6514, awarding the custody of their daughter to her
should not be disturbed inasmuch as the OSG only raised the issue of the
validity of the spouses' marriage on appeal.5
* Designated Junior Member per Office Order No. 346-21-RSF dated November 23, 2021.
1 Rollo, pp. 135-144.
2 See Notice of Appeal, records, pp. 342-343.
3 Rollo, pp. 145-150.
4 Id. at p. 146.
5 Id. at p. 147.
CA-G.R. CV No. 114091
RESOLUTION
Page 2
x-----------------------------------x

In its Comment,6 the OSG counters that since the marriage between
Armel and Christian still subsists, they shall jointly exercise parental
authority over their child. It points out that under the law, parental authority
terminates only upon final judgment of a competent court divesting the party
concerned of parental authority. Neither of the spouses have been divested of
their parental authority by this Court.7

After a careful scrutiny of the arguments of the parties, the Court

DENIES Armel's Manifestation with Motion for Clarification/Motion for
Partial Reconsideration. The parties' joint parental custody over their
daughter need not be raised by the OSG in its Brief because the same is
simply a logical and legal consequence of the Court's pronouncement that
the marital bond between them remains intact.

Parents have a natural and fundamental right to autonomy in the care,

custody, and upbringing of their children. The Family Code recognizes this
in Article 209:

Art. 209. Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over
the person and property of their unemancipated children, parental
authority and responsibility shall include the caring for and rearing them
for civic consciousness and efficiency and the development of their
moral, mental and physical character and well-being. (n)

Under Article 211 of the Family Code, parents are also expressly
granted joint parental authority over their children. It states:

Art. 211. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental
authority over the persons of their common children. In cases of
disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial
order to the contrary.

Applying the foregoing legal tenets to the case at bar, Armel and
Christian have joint parental authority over their daughter and consequently,
joint custody. Although the couple is separated de facto, the issue of custody
has yet to be adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the absence
of a judicial grant of custody to one parent, both parents are still entitled to
the custody of their child.8

Jurisprudence also instructs that where the parents are not divorced or
6 Id. at pp. 163-166.
7 Id. at pp. 164-165.
8 Salientes v. Abanilla, G.R. No. 162734, August 29, 2006.
CA-G.R. CV No. 114091
RESOLUTION
Page 3
x-----------------------------------x

legally separated, the father and mother shall jointly exercise just and
reasonable parental authority and fulfill their responsibility over their
legitimate children.9

In fine, since the marriage of Armel and Christian remains valid,

neither one of them can be deprived by this Court of parental custody over
their child.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the instant

Manifestation with Motion for Clarification/Motion for Partial
Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDWIN D. SORONGON
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
PERPETUA SUSANA T. ATAL-PAÑO
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
BONIFACIO S. PASCUA
Associate Justice

9 Artadi-Bondagy v. Bondagy, G.R. No. 140817, December 7, 2001.