LP Case Digests Compilation

7/24/2019 LP Case Digests Compilation

1/19

Sanggalang vs IAC, 177 SCRA 87 [1989]


2/19

Facts:

This case is about how Jupiter street and Orbit street, which were included in theproperty donated by the Ayala Corporation to the Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA), wasopened up to the public by a city ordinance enacted by the Mayor, contrary to the wishes othe Bel-Air !illage residents who wanted to "eep it closed or their pri!ate use and to ensure

their pri!acy#

Issue:

$hether or not the general public has the right to to use Jupiter and Orbit streets inBel-Air Village#

Held:

%es# The &eed o &onation e'ecuted by the Ayala Corporation co!ering Jupiter andOrbit treets eecti!ely re*uired both passageways open to the general public# The donationga!e the general public e*ual right to it as pro!ided in the contract o donation# The openingo Jupiter treet and Orbit was warranted by the de+ands o the co++on good, in ter+s otrac decongestion and public con!enience The challenged act o the Mayor is, rather, a !alide'ercies o police power o the tate# The act that the opening has led to the loss o pri!acyo BAVA residents is no argu+ent against the Municipalitys eort to ease !ehicular trac inMa"ati# The duty o local e'ecuti!e is to ta"e care o the needs o the greater nu+ber, in+any cases at the e'pense, o the +inority#.

Rationale:

The co++on good need not be utilitarian ethic o /the greatest happiness or thegreatest nu+ber#0 1ather, it is good o e!eryone# 2t bears the co++on aspirations o all, not

3ust the +a3ority#4

. ###the state, in order to pro+ote the general welare, +ay interere with personal liberty,with property, and with business and occupations# 5ersons +ay be sub3ected to all "inds o

restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general co+ort health and prosperity o thestate and to this unda+ental ai+ o our 6o!ern+ent, the rights o the indi!idual aresubordinated# (Ortigas and Co#, 7i+ited 5artnership !# 8eati Ban" and Trust Co# 6#1# 9o# 7-4:;)

4Atty# 9icolo 8# Bernardo, Associate &ean Oscar B# Bernardo, 5hilawsophia? 5hilosophy andTheory o law(p# ..)#


3/19

Heirs of Salas vs a!ert" Realt", #$% SCRA &1% [1999]

Facts:

The case is about a !ast tract o land owned by Augusto alas Jr# who entered into a Owner-Contractor Agree+ent with 7aperty 1ealty Corporation or construction ser!ices or his land

and such agree+ent inlcudes an artibration clause under Article V2 o the Agree+ent# alas Jr#then e'ecuted a pecial 5ower o Attorney in a!or o 7aperty 1ealty Corp# to e'ercise general,super!ision and +anage+ent o the sales o his land# By !irtue thereo, 7aperty 1ealty Corp#subdi!ided said land and sold portions thereo to !arious lot buyers#

The wie o alas Jr# @led a !eri@ed 5etition or the &eclaration o 5resu+pti!e &eathwhich was granted by the court in lieu o alas Jr# ailure to return ho+e ater se!en yearsro+ a business trip# Ater so+e ti+e, the heirs o alas Jr# @led a Co+plaint or the&eclaration o 9ullity o ale, 1econ!eyance, Cancellation o Contract against 7aperty 1ealtyCorp# and the !arious lot buyers#

Issue:

$hether or not the arbitration clause under Artilcle V2 o the Owner-ContracotrAgree+ent between by Augusto alas Jr# and 7aperty 1ealty Corp# is binding upon the heirs oalas and respondent lot buyers#

Held:

9o# 1espondent lot buyers are neither parties to the Agree+ent nor the latters assignsor heirs# Conse*uently, the right to arbitrate as pro!ided in Article V2 o the Agree+ent wasne!er !ested in respondent lot buyers# 1espondent 7aperal 1ealty, on the other hand, as acontracting party to the Agree+ent, has the right to co+pel petitioners to @rst arbitratebeore see"ing 3udicial relie# The upre+e Court has recognied arbitration agree+ents as!alid, binding, enorceable and not contrary to public policy so +uch so that when thereobtains a written pro!ision or arbitration which is not co+plied with, the trial court should

suspend the proceedings and order the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance withthe ter+s o their agree+ent#.

Rationale:

2n all religions there are +any in3unctions to be at peace with ones neighbors and to bereconciled speedily with an ad!ersary# Aristotle urged the bene@ts o conciliation# 2t wasco++on a+ong the 1o+ans to put an end to litigation by +eans o arbitration# 2n theearliest or+s o society disputes were tried by the heads o a+ilies, whence is deri!ed thepatriarchal tribunal now gi!en to the oce o arbitrator# 4

.1epublic Act 9o# >4DE, The Alternati!e &ispute 1esolution Act o 4==:4Farl # $ola!er, The Gistorical Bac"ground o Co++ercial Arbitration (.>H:)


4/19

In re: 'roo(s, 1 )*il+ [19%1]

A soldier who is unconditionally discharged from the Army and who then enters itsemploy as a clerk under contract as a civilian is not subject to military regulation; [Hence], abreach of a contract of employment entered into between a civilian and the Army can not be

punished by imprisonment and deportation!

Facts:

/IA#O# Broo"s had been an enlisted +an in the Knited tates (K##) Ar+y# o+e ti+e prior tothe @ling o his petition he had been granted an absolute discharge ro+ the Ar+y as a soldierand had entered the e+ploy o one o the +ilitary depart+ents under a contract# Kpon hisailure to co+ply with the ter+s o this contract or personal ser!ices the petitioner wasarrested by order o the co++anding general and was i+prisoned under an order odeportation to the Knited tates# Thereupon IBroo"s applied to the upre+e Court o the5hilippines or a writ o habeas corpus, '''#0

Issue:

hould Broo"s be granted liberty on the ground that his enlist+ent in the K## Ar+yhad been ter+inated already prior to the breach o contract he had co++itted against thelatterL

Held:

%es, Broo"s should be granted liberty# /2t is an established act that A#O# Broo"s hadobtained his absolute discharge as a soldier# 2t is li"ewise a act e'plicitly stated by thecounsel or the 6o!ern+ent that the absolute discharge granted contained no condition thatthe said Broo"s should render ser!ices in a ci!il capacity to the Ar+y as an e+ployee in itsoces, and i the latter had entered into a contract or the rendition o ser!ices he did so 3ust

as any pri!ate person not pre!iously in the +ilitary ser!ice +ight ha!e done#

By the absolute discharge there was dissol!ed e!ery legal bond that bound hi+ to theAr+y and thenceorth, since he no longer en3oyed the pri!ileges o the +ilitary, neither couldhe be held sub3ect to the obligations i+posed upon the +ilitary nor sub3ect to anything +orethan the ter+s o the contract o e+ploy+ent which he had entered into with the Ar+y# Andinas+uch as a pri!ate person who contracts obligations o this sort toward the Ar+y can not,by any law ' ' ', either ci!il or +ilitary, be co+pelled to ul@ll the+ by i+prison+ent anddeportation ro+ his place o residence, 2t is wholly i+proper to sustain such +eans oco+pulsion which are not 3usti@ed either by the law or by the contract#0


5/19

Figueroa vs+ 'arranco, $7& SCRA -- [1997]

A man cannot be castigated for seeking out the partner of his dreams, for marriageis a sacred and perpetual bond which should be entered into because of love, not for any

other reason!

Facts:

5atricia 8igueroa and i+eon Barranco, Jr# were town +ates in Janiuay, 2loilo# $henthey were still teenagers in .>EH, they beca+e sweethearts# 2n .>;:, their inti+acy produceda son and they na+ed hi+ 1aael Barranco# Ater their 1aaels birth, 8igueroa alleges thatBarranco pro+ised to +arry her or the @rst ti+e ater the latter would be ad+itted to the bar#8igueroa a!ers urther that as their relationship continued, Barranco had +ade +ore thantwenty or e!en thirty pro+ises o +arriage# Barranco ga!e only ten pesos e!ery ti+e 1aaelcelebrates his birthday# 2t was in the year .>>H or in!estigation,report and reco++endation# 2n .>>


6/19

punishment therefor ' ' '# 1arranco, who is now si5ty4two years of age, should thus beallowed, albeit belatedly, to take the lawyer7s oath!

.S vs+ /orr, $ )*il+7% [19%#]

Facts:

The deendants in this case ha!e been con!icted by a co+plaint that charged the+with the oense o writing, publishing, and circulating a scurrilous libel against the6o!ern+ent o the Knited tates and the 2nsular 6o!ern+ent o the 5hilippine 2slands whichis based upon ection D o Act 9o# 4>4 o the Co++ission#

The alleged libel was published in an article o the /Manila 8reedo+0 which was aboutthe appoint+ent o 8ilipinos who were designated as /rascal nati!es0 in the article# The articlereads? /There is no doubt but that the 8ilipino oce holders o the 2slands are in a good +any

instances rascals# /The co++ission has e'alted to the highest positions in the 2slands 8ilipinoswho are alleged to be notoriously corrupt and rascally, and +en o no personal character#0

The *uestion on to who+ the article is addressed and to who+ it shall be construedagainst is now the *uestion in this case# The *uestion is on how the ter+ /the 2nsular6o!ern+ent o the 5hilippine 2slands0 is used on ection D, Article 4>4# 2s it de@ned as /thee'isting law and institutions o the 2slands0 or /the aggregate o the indi!iduals by who+ thego!ern+ent o the 2slands is ad+inistered0L

Issue:

$hether or not the deendants +ay be charged with libel or writing against the Kgo!ern+ent and the 2nsular 6o!ern+ent o the 5hilippine 2slands#

Held:

9o# 2n Article 4>4, the +eaning o /2nsular 6o!ern+ent o the 5hilippine 2slands0 is thego!ern+ent as a syste+, howe!er, the article in *uestions attac"s the /go!ern+ent0 as theaggregate o public ocials who run it#

The upre+e Court ruled that the article in *uestion contains no attac" upon the6o!ern+ental syste+ o the K by which the authority o the K is enorced in the 2slands perse# 2n this case, what is attac"ed by the article is not the 6o!ern+ent syste+ in itsel but thecharacter o the +en who were elected to the positions in 6o!ern+ent and were entrustedwith its ad+inistration# The Court @nds no writing in the article that is in !iolation o Article4>4#


7/19

0eteran an!o2er vs+ CA, $1- SCRA $8& [199$]

Facts:

Veterans Manpower and 5rotecti!e eries, 2nc# (VM52), alleged that the pro!isions o1A E:D< or the 5ri!ate ecurity Agency 7aw !iolates the pro!isions o the Constitution against+onopolies, unair co+petition and co+binations o restraint o trade and tend to a!or andinstitutionalie the 5hilippine Association o &etecti!e and 5rotecti!e er!ices, 2nc# (5A&5AO)#$hich is contained in the ollowing pro!isions?

/FC# :# $ho +ay Organie a ecurity or $atch+an Agency# - Any 8ilipino citien or a

corporation, partnership, or association, with a +ini+u+ capital o @!e thousand pesos, onehundred per cent o which is owned and controlled by 8ilipino citiens +ay organie a securityor watch+an agency? 5ro!ided, That no person shall organie or ha!e aninterest in, +ore thanone such agency e'cept those which are alreadye'isting at the pro+ulgation o this &ecree? '' '#0 (As a+ended by 5# 9os# .. and .==#)

/FC# .


8/19

their duty# 2 the 3udg+ent against such ocials will re*uire the state itsel to peror+ anar+ati!e act to satisy the sa+e, such as the appropriation o the a+ount needed to paythe da+ages awarded against the+, the suit +ust be regarded as against the stateitsel although it has not been or+ally i+pleaded#

etro!olitan 3ater2or(s vs+ CA, 1-# SCRA &$# [198&]

Facts:

The City o &agupan @led a co+plaint against the or+er 9ational $aterwor"s andewerage Authority (9A$AA) now Metropolitan $aterwor"s and ewerage yste+ (M$),or reco!ery o the ownership and possession o the &agupan $aterwor"s yste+# 9A$AAinterposed as one o its special deenses 1#A# .HDH and as"ed or the rei+burse+ent o the

e'penses it had incurred or necessary and useul i+pro!e+ents a+ounting to 54EE,===#==#The trial court ruled in a!or o the City o &agupan and ad3udged 9A$AA to be a possessorin bad aith and hence not entitled to the rei+burse+ent clai+ed by it# 9A$AA appealed tothe Court o Appeals and argued that 9A$AA should be held liable or the a+ortiation othe balance o the loan secured by 9A$AA or the i+pro!e+ent o the &agupan $aterwor"syste+# The appellate court ar+ed the 3udg+ent o the trial court and held that /the useule'penses were +ade in utter bad aith or they were instituted ater the co+plaint was @lednd ater nu+erous upre+e Court decisions were pro+ulgated declaring unconstitutional theta"ing by 9A$AA o the patri+onial waterwor"s syste+s o cities, +unicipalities andpro!inces without 3ust co+pensation0# Gence, petitioner appealed to the upre+e Courtraising the issue o the re+o!al o useul i+pro!e+ents#

Issue:

$hether or not 9A$AA now M$ ha!e the right to re+o!e useul i+pro!e+ents#

Held:The upre+e Court ar+ed the decision o the appellate court and held that 9A$AA

now M$, being a possessor in bad aith ha!e no right to re+o!e useul i+pro!e+ents# Thecourt stated that /Article ::> o the Ci!il Code o the 5hilippines pro!ides that he who builds,plants or sows in bad aith on the land o another, loses what is built, planted or sown withoutright to inde+nity# As a builder in bad aith, 9A$AA lost whate!er useul i+pro!e+ents ithad +ade without right to inde+nity# Moreo!er, under Article E:; o said code, only apossessor in good aith shall be reunded or useul e'penses with the right o retention untilrei+bursed and under Article E:< thereo, only a possessor in good aith +ay re+o!e useuli+pro!e+ents i this can be done without da+age to the principal thing and i the person whoreco!ers the possession does not e'ercise the option o rei+bursing the useul e'penses# The

right gi!en a possessor in bad aith is to re+o!e i+pro!e+ents applies only to i+pro!e+entsor pure lu'ury or +ere pleasure, pro!ided the thing suers no in3ury thereby and the lawulpossessor does not preer to retain the+ by paying the !alue they ha!e at the ti+e he entersinto possession#0#


9/19

In re: Cunanan, 9- )*il+ #- [19-]

Facts:

Congress passed 1epublic Act 9o# >EH#0 By !irtue o the said law, the upre+e Court then passed and

ad+itted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an a!erage o :;, ;>N in.>:# 2n .>E= to .>EH, the


10/19

4*e Hol" See vs+ Rosario, $#8 SCRA $- [199-]

Facts:

The petitioner is the Goly ee who e'ercises so!ereignty o!er the Vatican City in 1o+e,2taly, and is represented in the 5hilippines by the 5apal 9uncio 5ri!ate respondent tarbright

ales Fnterprises, 2nc#, (tarbright) is a do+estic corporation engaged in the real estatebusiness#

The petition arose ro+ a contro!ersy o!er a parcel o land consisting o ;,=== s*uare+eters located in 5arana*ue, Metro Manila, and is registered in the na+e o the petitioner#aid lot was contiguous to two other lots registered in the na+e o 5hilippine 1ealtyCorporation (51C)# These lots were sold to 1a+on 7icup, through &o+ingo Cirilos, acting asagent to the sellers# 7icup then assigned his rights to tarbright# The s*uatters in the lotsreused to !acate the pre+ises# A dispute arose as to who between the parties has theresponsibility o e!icting and clearing the land o s*uatters#

Issue:

$hether or not the Goly ee is i++une ro+ suit insoar as its business relationsregarding selling a lot to a pri!ate entity#

Held:

The Court held that the Goly ee is i++une ro+ suit# The act o selling the lot oconcern is non-proprietary in nature since the lot was ac*uired through a donation ro+ theArchdiocese o Manila# uch donation was +ade not or a co++ercial purpose but or the useo the Goly ee to construct the ocial place o residence o the 5apal 9uncio# The right o aoreign so!ereign to ac*uire property, real or personal, in a recei!ing state, necessary or thecreation and +aintenance o its diplo+atic +ission, is recognied in the .>;. ViennaCon!ention on &iplo+atic 1elations# This treaty was concurred in by the 5hilippine enate andentered into orce in the 5hilippines# According to Art# H.(a) o the Con!ention, a diplo+atic

en!oy is granted i++unity ro+ ci!il and ad+inistrati!e 3urisdiction o the recei!ing stateo!er any real action relating to pri!ate i++o!able property situated in the territory o therecei!ing state which the en!oy holds on behal o the sending state or the purposes o the+ission#

The &epart+ent o 8oreign Aairs (&8A) also certi@ed that the e+bassy o the Golyee is a duly accredited diplo+atic +issionary to the 1epublic o the 5hilippines and is thuse'e+pted ro+ local 3urisdiction and is entitled to the i++unity rights o a diplo+atic +issionor e+bassy in this court#


11/19

The transer o the property and its subse*uent disposal are li"ewise clothed withgo!ern+ental character# The lot was not sold or pro@t or gain# The petitioner +erely wantedto dispose the lot because the s*uatters li!ing there +ade it al+ost i+possible or thepetitioner to use it or the purpose o the donation#

Santos vs+ Santos, 9$ )*il+ #- [19-]

Facts:

5etitioners Teodora antos and her nieces F+iliana and Jose@na antos co+plain thatro+ .>:E to .>:> 7eoncio antos (7eoncio) collected rentals or the use and occupation o aparcel o land situated in 7as 5inas# According to the petitioners, the land is owned by the+and 7eoncio in co++on by inheritance ro+ their ancestor# $hen they de+anded their shareo rental upon 7eoncio, the latter ailed and reused to gi!e their share# They also co+plainedthat when they de+anded to ha!e the lot partitioned a+ong the+, 7eoncio reused andinstead sold the lot to the Ad+inistrator o the Ci!il Aeronautics Ad+inistration#

The Ci!il Aeronautics Ad+inistration clai+ed that, not being a 3uridical person it has nocapacity to sue and be sued#

Issue:

$hether or not the Ci!il Aeronautics Ad+inistration is i++une ro+ suit

Held:

The Ci!il Aeronautics Ad+inistration is not i++une ro+ suit# F!en i it is not a 3uridicalentity, it cannot legally pre!ent a party ro+ enorcing propriety rights under the cloa" orshield o lac" o 3uridical personality, since it too" o!er all the powers and assu+ed all theobligations o the deunct corporation which had entered in the contract in *uestion#

2, where, and when the state or its go!ern+ent enters into a contract, through its

ocers or agents, in urtherance o a legiti+ate ai+ and purpose and pursuant toconstitutional legislati!e authority, where +utual or reciprocal bene@ts accrue and rights andobligations arise therero+, and i the law granting the authority to enter such contract doesnot pro!ide or or na+e the ocer against who+ action +ay be brought in the e!ent o abreach, the state itsel +ay be sued e!en without its consent# By entering into a contract theso!ereign state has descended to the le!el o the citien and its consent to be used is i+pliedro+ the !ery act o entering into such contract#


12/19


13/19

In re: acdougall, # !*il+ 7% [19%#]

Facts:

On &ece+ber 4:, .>=4, the Court o 8irst 2nstance o the 5ro!ince o 2sabela +ade andentered a suspension order against 1obert # Mac&ougall# The suspension was or the allegedwillul disobedience Gence, a preli+inary in3unction was granted in the case because theparticular clause o the order which it is clai+ed was !iolated was that in which thedeendants in the suit were prohibited ro+ destroying the ences on the haciendas o an7uis and 7a Concepcion#

The deendant contended that, to constitute a !iolation o an in3unction, the actco+plained o +ust be such as is directed against the interest in the litigation or theprotection o which the 3urisdiction was issued and that none o the eighty-@!e deendants,parties to the original suit, clai+s any interest in the land upon which the ence cut wassituated and thereore that there was no !iolation o the in3unction (4) that the cutting o theence was necessary in order to open a public road which had been in use or thirty years and

which was the only +eans o ingress and egress too the lands o one 7acaste, with who+ thedeendant had business relations, the entry o the deendants being or the purpose o !isitingthe house o 7acaste (H) that i the conduct o the deendant in cutting the ence was in acta !iolation o the in3unction, still, the e!idence indicates that the deendants purpose was nota contu+acious !iolation o the order o the court#

Issue:

$hether or not there is a !iolation o the in3unction and that the conduct o thedeendant in cutting the ence was such a willul disobedience o the order o the court as to

3ustiy his suspension or disbar+ent#

Held:

The Court clearly o the opinion that it was not the 3udg+ent o the Court o 8irst2nstance suspending the deendant is annulled and set aside#

The grounds upon which the application or the writ o in3unction was based do notappear ro+ the record nor does it appear ro+ the record or ro+ the proos in the casewhere the particular lands owned by the deendants were situated# The order restrained thedeendants ro+ doing certain enu+erated acts on the haciendas an 7uis and 7a Concepcionand destroying ences o the sa+e# To deter+ine the *uestion it beco+es necessary to


14/19

consider the e!idence with reerence to the situation o the haciendas an 7uis and 7aConcepcion, the situation o the land the sub3ect o the litigation, and the situation o theences or the cutting o which the suspension proceedings were said#

2t is not necessary to deter+ine i the order had speci@cally identi@ed the ence at thepoint at which it was cut and had clearly e+braced it, i the court acted in e'cess o its

3urisdiction and the deendants could disregard the order# The proper practice in such caseswould be to apply to the court or a +odi@cation o the in3unction#

As to whether the road at the point where the ence had been cut the day beore was apublic road, it is not necessary to deter+ine# The testi+ony o 7acaste and other witnessesshow that it had been tra!eled as a public road or thirty years and had only recently beenclosed by the co+pany#

The language o the clause or which the suspension or disbar+ent was ordered is orthe willul disobedience o any lawul order o the upre+e Court or the Court o 8irst2nstance# 8ro+ this language it is to be inerred that so+ething +ore was conte+plated thana +ere disobedience, which +eans, in co++on acceptation, neglect or reusal to obey# Theword willul has been superadded and con!eys the idea o agrant +isconduct such aswould indicate a disposition o the deendant so reractory in its nature as to aect his*uali@cation or the urther e'ercise o his oce as attorney#

8or dereliction o duty on the part o an attorney, articles HE; and HE< o the 5enalCode pro!ide a punish+ent# The punish+ent pro!ided in the 5enal Code and in the articlesabo!e reerred to or conte+pt would see+ to be sucient to pre!ent a +ere obstruction inthe ad+inistration o 3ustice, e'cept where the acts are o such a character as to aect the*uali@cation o an attorney or the practice o his proession# The suspension o an attorneyro+ practice, while it is correctional in its nature, should be directed with a due regard to theeect o such suspension upon the attorney as well as the client# As happened in this case,there was the interest o a large nu+ber o clients and i+portant rights in!ol!ed# The attorneywas suspended beore @nal 3udg+ent and beore he had prepared the bill o e'ceptions orthe re!ision o the case by this court on appeal, in the preparation o which his ser!ices couldnot well be supplied besides, it has resulted in the interruption o his business as an attorneyor nearly one year# The action o the court in thus su++arily placing the deendant upon trialwithout a due opportunity o +a"ing his deense and procuring the attendance o hiswitnesses not only resulted in depri!ing hi+ o the right to which e!ery citien is entitled, butit has necessitated the ta"ing o the testi+ony o the deendants witnesses in this court, andhas occasioned great delay in the disposition o the case, all o which could ha!e beena!oided by gi!ing the deendant proper ti+e or the preparation o his deense#


15/19

)*ili!!ine )ress Institute vs+ C566C, $-- SCRA $7$ [199]

Facts:

The 5hilippine 5ress 2nstitute, 2nc# assails the constitutional !alidity o 1esolution 9o#4>E letter constitute i+positions

o in!oluntary ser!itude, contrary to the Constitution# o they @led 5etition or Certiorari and5rohibition with prayer or the issuance o a Te+porary 1estraining Order#

On 4= April .>>E, this Court issued a Te+porary 1estraining Order en3oining Co+elecro+ enorcing and i+ple+enting ection 4 o 1esolution 9o# 4E# The Courtalso re*uired the respondent to @le a Co++ent on the 5etition#


16/19

The Oce o the olicitor 6eneral @led its Co++ent on behal o respondent Co+elecalleging that Co+elec 1esolution 9o# 4E, the Court recei!ed ro+ the Oce o the olicitor 6eneral a+aniestation, which attached a copy o Co+elec 1esolution 9o# 4E#

Issue:

$hether or not 1esolution 9o# 4


17/19


18/19

una vs IAC, 1#7 SCRA

8acts?

The case is about a child(hirley) who since birth has been in the care andcustody o her petitioners oster parents but has not undergone proper legal adoptionproceedings at the ti+e she was gi!en up by her biological parents# The respondentbiological parents surrendered the child hoping to gi!e her a better lie that theycannot pro!ide# The proble+ lies when such biological parents orces the child to betheir daughter again against the wishes o the child, whose lo!e and aection hasbeen reciprocated by the oster parents +a"ing her distant, distrustul o herbiological parents to a point that she would rather die than be with her biologicalparents#

2ssue?

$hether or not the custody and parental authority belongs to the respondentbiological parents#

Geld?

%es# $hate!er agree+ent or arrange+ent there was between the osterparents and biological parents when the child was gi!en to the or+er, the sa+e hasnot been !alidated nor legalied by the +ere act that the said girl had stayed withthe petitioners or a nu+ber o years, in !iew o the e'plicit pro!ision o Article H.H+andating that parental authority cannot be renounced or transerred, e'cept incases o guardianship or adoption appro!ed by the courts, or e+ancipation byconcession# 2t has been an established rule that the preerence o a child is only oneactor to be considered, and it is not controlling, decisi!e, or deter+inati!e# The courthas a discretion to deter+ine the *uestion o custody, and it is not error or the courtto reuse to discuss the custody issue with the child# The present petition or custodyo petitioners runs counter to the parental preerence rule# Knder the parental


19/19

preerence rule, a natural parent, ather or +other, as the case +ay be, who is ogood character and a proper person to ha!e the custody o the child and isreasonably able to pro!ide or such child, ordinarily is entitled to the custody asagainst all persons# 1espondents ha!e not been shown to be un@t or unsuitable or@nancially incapable o "eeping and caring or hirley, the latters custody should beawarded to said respondents#.

1ationale?

An ad!ocate o proprietarianis+ holds that children are the property o theirparents, and that this ser!es to ground parental rights (and perhapsobligations)# 5roprietarianists argue, gi!en that parents in so+e sense produce theirchildren, that children are the property o their parents in so+e sense o the ter+# 4

. antos r# !# Court o Appeals 61 9o# ..H=E: March .;, .>>E

4Artistotle, 9ico+achean Fthics, ..H:b

LP Case Digests Compilation

Documents

Transcript of LP Case Digests Compilation