FLORES v.

ESTEBAN 97 Phil 439

FACTS: Eduardo s. Flores in his petition filed to the Supreme Court alleged in substance that he was married to Adoracion Esteban who died on December 27, 1953, that he had a son with her named Reynaldo Cenon E. Flores born on December 22, 1946; that until her death she and her son Cenon lived with her mother, Maria de Leon Vda. De Esteban, the respondent herein. Said respondent restrain the liberty of said minor and refuses the surrender him to the custody of the petitioner. The respondent alleged that she has the custody of the child since he was twenty (20) days old until now that the child is eight (8) years old, supporting him and sending him to the primary school in Bulacan, paying for the school expanses. The respondent also contended that she is not restraining the liberty of said minor but the latter refuses to refuses to go with his father whom he hardly knows. It appears from the evidence that the petitioner has been away from his country since the respondent took care of and supported the child who was only 20 days old and that the petitioner has been supporting the minor until now when he is already 8 years old for his expenses in school. The petition was not directly raise by the father but the paternal grandfather, Macario Flores who resides in Pateros, Rizal. However, Eduardo Flores cannot take care of the child because he is now living and working in Okinawa, Japan. ISSUE: whether or not the child should be take care of by the paternal grandfather or the maternal grandfather as substitute guardian. RULING: The should be considered that maternal grandparent is almost a mother to the child having him take care of since he was 20 days old up to now and feels love of a mother for him, without prejudice to the obligation of the father to contribute to his maintenance. Article 349 (6) of the Family Code includes grandparents as persons who shall exercise substitute parental authority. Wherefore, Article 355 states that: Substitute Parental authority shall be exercised by grandparents in the following order: 1. Parental grandparent 2. Maternal grandparent However, Article 363 of the same code says that: In all question of care, custody, education and property of children, the latters welfare shall be paramount.xxx Petition dismissed.

SYBIL SAMSON, represented by his mother CONSUELO ENRIQUEZ-SAMSON, and CONSUELO ENRIQUEZ SAMSON, petitioner v. HON. NICASIO YATCO of COURT of FIRST INSTANCE, QUEZON CITY BRANCH, ARSENIO SAMSON and DOROTHEA ANGELES VDA. DE SAMSON, respondent 1, SCRA 1145 FACTS: On February 3, 1958, the petitioner, Consuelo Enriquez-Samson, an appointed guardian ad litem, filed a petition for the support of the other petitioner, her minor child to the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch. The petition for support alleges that Sybil Samson, a minor is a legitimate child of Consuelo Enriquez and Arsenio Samson who after their marriage on April 18, 1953, they lived together in the house of the latters mother, Dorothea Angeles Vda. De Samson at Marikina, Rizal. On February 1954, Consuelo and Sybil left the said house because her mother-in-law used to maltreat them. The respondent, Arsenio Samson. A professor of National Teachers College refused or failed to heed her request to rent a separate dwelling where they could live together. Moreover, since February 1954 up to the filing of the petition Arsenio who already had a concubine has not given any support to her and his son Sybil. And that Arsenio in answer to her extrajudicial demand for monthly support in the sum of Php 200 made in June 1957, Arsenio had offered only Php 30 a month, which she refused to accept. On the day of the hearing, the petitioner failed to appear despite of notice because the petitioner counsel manifested that Sybil is sick and her mother is attending to him. The Court ordered Municipal Health Office to proceed to the place of the petitioners to examine his conditions and later found out Sybil had only slight fever and her mother was not there, notwithstanding the fact the she alleged to be with her sick son. The Court dismissed the petitioners motion for reconsideration. ISSUE: whether or not the respondent and his mother should give support to the petitioners. RULING: the petitioners has the right for support from the respondents, which under Article 301 of the Family Code cannot be waived had already been recognized when the trial shall order the respondents to give the petitioner for the dismissal with prejudice to the petitioners support to stand, the petitioners would be deprived of such right for present and future support. PETITION GRANTED.