As earlier discussed, the best interest of the child is of utmost importance.

The social, mental and physical development of the child are supposed to be
promoted by the parent or whoever has custody over the child. All these
can be seen from the enumeration in Article 220.

1. Right to childs custody
Includes:
day-to-day care and companionship of child (2)
right to discipline child (8)
right to control and manage minor childs earnings
right to control and manage minor childs property
right to be supported by adult child
right to have child bear parents name
righ to prevent adoption of child without parents consent
CASES:
David vs CA
Parents, being the natural guardians of unemancipated children are
duty bound and entitled to keep them in their company.
Such rule applies only if the child is legitimate.
If the child is illegitimate, he is under the sole parental authority of
the mother.
Unless there is imperative cause showing her unfitness to exercise
such authority and care.
Father is entitled to visitation rights.
The Court held that parental authority cannot be entrusted to a
person simply because he could give a larger measure of material
comfort than his natural parent.
It is enough however, that petitioner is earning a decent living and
is able to support her children according to her means.

Unson III vs Navarro (MIGUEL R. UNSON III, Petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO C.
NAVARRO AND EDITA N. ARANETA, Respondents)
Since the birth of Maria Teresa, she has always lived with affiant,
her mother, who has reared and brought up the child to the best of
her ability.
That when Maria Teresa started pre-school in 1976 at the Early
Learning Center in San Lorenzo, very near petitioner's residence,
and later, when she started school at Assumption College, Maria
Teresa would stay with petitioner during school days and spend
weekends with her mother, but there were times when her mother
would not even bother to pick her up during non-school days.
It is axiomatic in Our jurisprudence that in controversies regarding
the custody of minors the sole and foremost consideration is the
physical, education, social and moral welfare of the child concerned,
taking into account the respective resources and social and moral
situations of the contending parents. Never has this Court diverted
from that criterion.
Medina vs Makabali (ZENAIDA MEDINA, assisted by her husband,
FELICIANO CASERO, petitioner-appellant, vs. DRA. VENANCIA L.
MAKABALI, respondent-appellee)
on February 4, 1961, petitioner Zenaida Medina gave birth to a baby boy
named Joseph Casero in the Makabali Clinic in San Fernando, Pampanga,
owned and operated by respondent Dra. Venancia Makabali, single, who
assisted at the delivery. The boy was Zenaida's third, had with a married
man, Feliciano Casero.

The mother left the child with Dra. Makabali from his birth. The latter took
care and reared Joseph as her own son; had him treated at her expense for
poliomyelitis by Dra. Fe del Mundo, in Manila, until he recovered his health;
and sent him to school. From birth until August 1966, the real mother never
visited her child, and never paid for his expenses.

The trial disclosed that petitioner Zenaida Medina lived with Feliciano
Casero with her two other children apparently with the tolerance, if not the
acquiescence, of Caseros lawful wife who resides elsewhere, albeit the
offspring of both women are in good terms with each other; that Casero
makes about P400.00 a month as a mechanic, and Zenaida herself earns
from 4 to 5 pesos a day.

We see no reason to disturb the order appealed from. While our law
recognizes the right of a parent to the custody of her child, Courts must not
lose sight of the basic principle that "in all questions on the care, custody,
education and property of children, the latter's welfare shall be paramount"
(Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 363), and that for compelling reasons,
even a child under seven may be ordered separated from the mother (Do.)
This is as it should be, for in the continual evolution of legal institutions, the
patria potestas has been transformed from the jus vitae ac necis (right of
life and death) of the Roman law, under which the offspring was virtually a
chattel of his parents, into a radically different institution, due to the
influence of Christian faith and doctrines. The obligational aspect is now
supreme. As pointed out by Puig Pea, now "there is no power, but a task;
no complex of rights (of parents) but a sum of duties; no sovereignty, but a
sacred trust for the welfare of the minor." 1

As a result, the right of parents to the company and custody of their
children is but ancillary to the proper discharge of parental duties to provide
the children with adequate support, education, moral, intellectual and civic
training and development (Civil Code, Art. 356). As remarked by the Court
below, petitioner Zenaida Medina proved remiss in these sacred duties; she
not only failed to provide the child with love and care but actually deserted
him, with not even a visit, in his tenderest years, when he needed his
mother the most. It may well be doubted what advantage the child could
derive from being coerced to abandon respondent's care and love to be
compelled to stay with his mother and witness her irregular menage a trois
with Casero and the latter's legitimate wife
2. Duty to provide support
Not co-terminus with parental authority
Not necessarily terminated upon emancipation
3. Duty of representation

Section 5, Rule 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may
sue or be sued, with the assistance of his father,
mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad
litem.
Guardian ad litem is an officer of the court
appointed to appear for an infant, and to
manage and take care of suit for such infant
when he is a plaintiff, and to appear,
manage and take care of the defense for
the infant when he is defendant.

4. Rights to give or withhold consent

Such duty may extend even beyond the age of majority or upon the
termination of parental authority.
Example: parental consent to marriage
5. Other duties imposed by law

R.A. 9231 (R.A. 7610 amendment: Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
Child employment
or participation in public entertainment or
information