DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’ February 25, 2010 Decision and April 6, 201] Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 90303 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The May 9, 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Parafiaque City, Branch 260, in Civil Cases 01-0228 and 03-0384 is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
NOTE: “MARRIED TO” ONLY REFERS TO THE CIVIL STATUS OF THE PROPERTY’S REGISTERED OWNER. THE HUSBAND CANNOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED JOINTLY IN ACQUIRING THE FUNDS SINCE HE DID NOT CARE FOR AND MAINTAIN THE FAMILY AND THE HOUSEHOLD.
In this case, there is proof that the Parafiaque lot was not obtained by Mario and Rosanna’s joint efforts, work, or industry. Rita M. Tan, Rosanna’s aunt, donated the 315-square meter lot to Rosanna and her father, Rodolfo M. Tan. The Deed ofDonation331 dated August 25, 1998 provides that Rita M. Tan donated 157.50 square meters to “Rodolfo M. Tan, married to Josefina G. Leafio”332 and to “Rosanna L. Tan-Anda!, married to Mario Andal”333 each. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 139811 covering 157.50 square meters of the Parafiaque lot is under the name of “Rosanna L. Tan[1]Andal, of legal age, Filipino, married to Mario Andal.”334 In Salas, Jr. v. Aguila,335 this Court held that “married to” only refers to the civil status of the property’s registered owner.336 Thus, Rosanna exclusively owns half of the 315-square meter Parafiaque lot. Mario has no share in this property because he did not care for and maintain the family and the household.
As for the half of the duplex house that served as the parties’ family f home, there is evidence that the funds used to construct the house were obtained solely through Rosanna and her father’s efforts. In a promissory note337 dated July 13, 1998, Rosanna and her father jointly loaned P2,400,000.00 from the Elena P. Tan Foundation for the construction of a house on the Parafiaque lot. Although Mario signed the promissory note to give “marital consent” to Rosanna, he has no proof that he participated in acquiring the funds. He cannot be deemed to have contributed jointly in acquiring the funds since he did not care for and maintain the family and the household.
………………………………….
IN DECIDING CASES INVOLVING CUSTODY OF A MINOR WHAT MUST THE COURT CONSIDER?
AMONG OTHERS, “THE PREVIOUS CARE AND DEVOTION SHOWN BY EACH OF THE PARENTS; THEIR RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND, MORAL UPRIGHTNESS, HOME ENVIRONMENT AND TIME AVAILABILITY.
In Pablo-Gualberto v. Gualberto,339 this Court held that the “separation of parents” contemplated in Article 213 may either be legal separation or separation in fact. 340 In deciding cases involving custody of a minor, the courts must consider, among others, “the previous care and devotion shown by each of the parents; their religious background, moral uprightness, home environment and time availability; [ and] the [child’s] emotional and educational needs.”341 Here, Mario and Rosanna have been separated in fact since 2000. Between them, Rosanna showed greater care and devotion to Ma. Samantha. Even when they still lived together, Rosanna had been more available to her child. She raised Ma. Samantha on her own since she and Mario separated. Mario has not supported both mother and child since he separated from 0 Rosanna, even after he had claimed that he has been living “drug-free.”
……………………………
NOTE: MARRIAGE REMAINS AN INSTITUTION DESIGNED TO PROVIDE LEGAL AND PUBLIC RECOGNITION.
Marriage is not compulsory when in love; neither does it create love. Nonetheless, it remains an institution designed to provide legal and public recognition that may be well deserved not only for the couple, but also for their families existing or yet to come.
To be clear, our collective hope is that one who chooses marriage realizes that the other deserves more caring, more compassion, more kindness in the daily and banal grind of their relationship. It is in these same values of sacrifice and empathy that we will have the chance to evolve into a society that is more humane and, eventually, more just.
Yet, we are not blind to the reality that a person may be truly psychologically incapable for the other from the beginning. Should there be grave need to part for the reasons we have stated, courts can lead the way to make parting less bitter, minimize animosity, and make lives more forward- / looking for those most affected.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 