Espiritu vs Court of Appeals.

242 SCRA 362

March 15, 1995

Fact of the Case:

At Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, petitioner Reynaldo Espiritu and respondent Teresita
Masauding began with a common law relationship. Their relationship resulted to
Rosalind, their daughter who was born on August 16, 1986. When they were on brief
vacation in the Philippines, they got married. Upon returning to United States, their
second child Reginald Vince was born.
On January 12, 1988. Their relationship went sour and they decided to separate
some time on 1990. Instead of giving their marriage a change as allegedly pleaded by
Reynaldo, Teresita left Reynaldo and the children and went back to California. Reynaldo
brought his children home to the Philippines, but he was sent back by his company to
Pittsburg. He had to leave his children with his sister, co petitioner Guillerma Layug.
Teresita claims that she did not immediately follow her children because she was
afraid of being arrested since Reynaldo had filed a criminal case for bigamy against her.
On 1992, she returned to the Philippines and filed the petition of writ of habeaus corpus
to gain custody over her children. The trial court favored Reynaldo for the children chose
him over their mother. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision.
Petitioner filed for review to the Supreme Court contending that the Court of Appeals
awarded the custody of the children to the mother through an automatic and blind
application of the age proviso that children below 7 shall not be separated from their
mothers.

Issue:
Between the father and the mother, who is more suitable and better qualified in
helping the children to grow into responsible, well-adjusted, and happy young adulthood.

Held:
In ascertaining the best interest of the child, courts are mandated by the Family
Code to take into account all relevant considerations. If a child is under seven years old,
the law presumes the mother is the best custodian. However, it is not conclusive. It can be
overcome by “compelling reason”. If a child is over seven, his choice is paramount but
the court is not bound by that choice. In its discretion the court may find the chosen
parent unfit and award custody to the other parent, or even to third party as it deem fit
under the circumstances.
Both children Reginald Vince and Rosalind are now over 7 years old, capable of
fair and intelligent decision. Their best interest would be better served in an environment
characterized by emotional stability and a certain degree of material sufficiency for which
they mother Teresita sorely is incapable or lacking. There is nothing in the records to
show that Reynaldo is “unfit” under the Family Code. Moreover, the children’s clear
choice is their father.