Carnabuci v. Tagaña-Carnabuci
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: David H. Carnabuci (petitioner, Italian citizen) and Harryvette Rowena Tagaña-Carnabuci (respondent) were married in 2013 and had two minor children, Rocco (born 2015) and Zahara (born 2017). Their marital relations deteriorated, with Harryvette alleging physical abuse by David. They executed a Memorandum of Agreement for shared custody and support. Harryvette left Cebu with the children for Antipolo City, later went to Paris, France, and eventually returned to the Philippines, entrusting the children's custody to David. In July 2019, Harryvette and her mother, Joselyn B. Espiritu, learned David left the children with a couple without their knowledge. Harryvette then authorized Joselyn to act as guardian. David demanded custody from Joselyn, who refused. Procedural History: David filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus with Child Custody. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted Joselyn provisional custody, issued a Hold Departure Order, and later, after trial, granted Harryvette exclusive parental authority and permanent custody, with Joselyn exercising immediate custody due to Harryvette's absence. David's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA modified the RTC decision, granting David and Harryvette joint parental authority but awarding sole custody to Harryvette, with Joselyn exercising provisional custody. David's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: David assails the CA's decision, arguing it erred in granting joint parental authority to him and Harryvette while awarding sole custody to Harryvette. He contends that Article 213 of the Family Code does not grant the mother sole custody and that he should have been awarded joint custody. He also argues Harryvette should be considered 'absent' under Article 212 of the Family Code due to her work abroad, and that Joselyn's provisional custody is invalid as parental authority cannot be transferred by a mere letter.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the Petition for Habeas Corpus with Child Custody when it granted joint parental authority to petitioner David H. Carnabuci and respondent Harryvette Rowena Tagaña-Carnabuci but only the sole custody over their children to respondent Harryvette Rowena Tagaña-Carnabuci. Whether respondent Harryvette Rowena Tagaña-Carnabuci can be considered absent under Article 212 of the Family Code. Whether respondent Joselyn B. Espiritu may exercise provisional authority over the children, as their maternal grandmother, due to Harryvette Rowena Tagaña-Carnabuci's absence.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The December 12, 2022 Decision and March 2, 2023 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 173454 are AFFIRMED. 1. Respondent Harryvette Rowena Tagaña-Carnabuci and petitioner David Carnabuci shall have joint parental authority over the minors Rocco Antonino T. Carnabuci and Zahara Brigitte T. Carnabuci. 2. Respondent Harryvette Rowena Tagaña-Carnabuci shall have sole custody over the minors Rocco Antonino T. Carnabuci and Zahara Brigitte T. Carnabuci. 3. Considering that respondent Harryvette Rowena Tagaña-Carnabuci is currently abroad, the children's maternal grandmother, respondent Joselyn B. Espiritu, is allowed to exercise provisional custody over the children. 4. Petitioner David Carnabuci is allowed visitation rights over his children under the following conditions: a. Every Saturdays and Sundays. b. On special occasions such as but not limited to their birthdays, as long as it does not prejudice their education. c. During holidays or for five days when the children are in their school break, upon prior written consent of respondent Harryvette Rowena Tagaña-Carnabuci, limited to either Christmas Day or New Year's Day, subject to election. d. The children shall always be accompanied by respondent Joselyn B. Espiritu or any person of her choice. 5. Petitioner David Carnabuci is not permitted to bring the children outside the Province of Rizal unless with the permission of either respondent Harryvette Rowena Tagaña-Carnabuci or respondent Joselyn B. Espiritu. 6. Petitioner David Carnabuci is directed to pay in full the accumulated monthly support of PHP 20,000.00 owed to the children beginning from March 2022 up to receipt of this Decision, and to continue paying the amount of PHP 20,000.00 monthly thereafter, inclusive of basic, medical, and miscellaneous expenses, deposited to respondent Joselyn B. Espiritu's bank account on or before the fifth day of every month. 7. Respondent Joselyn B. Espiritu is directed to account for the monthly support and keep all receipts relative to the children's expenses.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of joint parental authority and sole custody: The Court affirmed the CA's modification of the RTC's decision. It held that while parents jointly exercise parental authority under Article 211 of the Family Code, in cases of separation, the court designates who exercises it. The CA correctly awarded joint parental authority to both David and Harryvette, recognizing David's continued rights. However, the CA's award of 'sole custody' to Harryvette was affirmed, with the understanding that this is not an absolute or permanent deprivation of David's rights, but rather a designation of the primary custodian, especially considering the 'tender-age presumption' under Article 213 of the Family Code. The Court reiterated that custody is not unalterable and is always subject to the child's best interest. On whether respondent Harryvette Rowena Tagaña-Carnabuci can be considered absent under Article 212 of the Family Code: The Court ruled that Harryvette cannot be considered 'absent' within the contemplation of Article 212. Despite working abroad, she maintained continuous communication with her children through technology, monitored them via CCTV, and provided financial support. The Court cited Espiritu v. Court of Appeals to emphasize that temporary assignments abroad do not deprive a parent of custody rights, and being an OFW does not automatically mean absence if parental authority is still exercised. David failed to prove Harryvette was unfit to divest her of custody. On whether respondent Joselyn B. Espiritu may exercise provisional authority over the children: The Court affirmed Joselyn's provisional custody. This was based on Article 213 of the Family Code, which allows the mother to designate someone to exercise custody when she is abroad. The RTC and CA found Joselyn more capable of providing full and undivided attention to the children compared to David, who was found to have exhibited violent tendencies, was a habitual drinker and smoker, and had issues with financial support. The children had also grown accustomed to living with Joselyn and their half-siblings, making her the most suitable custodian in Harryvette's absence, prioritizing the children's best interests and welfare.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court clarified that while Article 213 of the Family Code creates a 'tender-age presumption' favoring the mother for children under seven, this presumption is not absolute and can be overcome by compelling reasons. The Court also held that a parent working abroad, even as an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW), is not automatically considered 'absent' under Article 212 of the Family Code if they maintain regular communication and exercise parental authority. Custody decisions are based on the child's best interests, considering all circumstances, and are subject to re-evaluation.