When parental authority is granted solely to the mother, as in the case of illegitimate children, the substitute parental authority shall be exercised by grandparents or the other persons specified in the Family Code.
This was the ruling of the Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., as it partially granted the petition of a minor’s collateral grandparents challenging the award of custody to the minor’s biological father.
Winston Clark Stolk, Sr. (Stolk), in a habeas corpus proceeding, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for absolute and permanent custody over his minor son, Winston, following the death of Winston’s mother, Catherine Alfonso Daen (Daen), a few hours after giving birth to him.
Winston was left in the care of Nora A. Lopez and Marcelino Alfonso (collateral grandparents), who were the siblings of Winston’s biological grandparents.
The RTC granted Stolk’s petition and awarded him custody over Winston, finding that the DNA test result, which showed a 99.9997% probability of paternity, together with the parentage report and Winston’s birth certificate, established Stolk’s right of custody and parental authority over Winston.
The RTC applied Article 212 of the Family Code, which states that in case of death of either parent, the parent present shall continue exercising parental authority.
The collateral grandparents filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that a case study should first be done by the Department of Social Welfare and Development in light of Stolk’s legal issues with American and Surinamese authorities and to determine who can best provide the most suitable environment for the minor’s holistic development.
The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. The collateral grandparents subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal, but the RTC dismissed it for nonpayment of docket fees within the reglementary period.
The collateral grandparents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA denied their petition for being time-barred and given the RTC’s Decision already attaining finality.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the RTC erred in awarding Stolk custody over Winston based solely on parentage.
Under Article 214 of the Family Code, in case of the death, absence, or unsuitability of the parents, substitute parental authority shall be exercised by the surviving grandparent or to the specified persons under Article 216 of the law.
This applies not only when both parents exercise parental authority but also when only one parent has sole custody, such as the mother of an illegitimate child, to whom the law explicitly grants sole parental authority, notwithstanding the father’s recognition of the child.
Thus, when parental authority is granted solely to the mother, as in the case of illegitimate children, the substitute parental authority shall be exercised by the grandparents or the specified persons under Article 216 of the Family Code.
Otherwise, the law’s intent to grant sole parental authority to the mother for their illegitimate children will be circumvented.
This does not, however, automatically and absolutely disqualify the father of an illegitimate child from exercising substitute parental authority in case of the death, absence, or unsuitability of the mother. Where he is the child’s actual custodian, the father of an illegitimate child may exercise parental authority and be given custody.
In the present case, Stolk and Daen were not married. Thus, Daen had sole parental authority, including custody, over Winston.
The RTC therefore erred in applying Article 212, instead of Article 214, of the Family Code.
Upon Daen’s death, Winston’s collateral grandparents may exercise substitute parental authority over Winston.
This, however, is still subject to the proper determination of a court, taking into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 14 of the Rule on Custody of Minors, such as the child’s health, safety, and welfare and the most suitable physical, emotional, spiritual, psychological, and educational environment for the minor’s holistic development and growth.
However, the RTC did not consider these factors. Its “overreliance on the evidence of Stolk’s parentage” constituted grave error not only for violating Article 214 of the Family Code but also for effectively abandoning its legal and moral duty to rule in the best interest of the minor.
The Court also ruled that both the RTC and the CA erred in dismissing the Notice of Appeal and petition for certiorari, respectively, having applied Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which gives the petitioner only 48 hours from notice of the Decision to file an appeal. The Court held that the applicable rule is Section 19 of the Rule on Custody of Minors which, with respect to the period of appeal in habeas corpus cases involving minors, gives petitioners a 15-day appeal period.
The Court remanded the case to the RTC, with an express order to consider the factors and measures under the Rule on Custody of Minors in resolving the issue of Winton’s custody.(Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
FULL TEXT of G.R. No. 234660 (Spouses Gabun v. Stolk, Sr.), June 26, 2023 at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/234660-spouses-magdalino-gabun-and-carol-gabun-nora-a-lopez-and-marcelino-alfonso-vs-winston-clark-stolk-sr/
The Decision referred to them as collateral grandparents, probably not to confuse with the mother’s biological parents