Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy
*
G.R.No.140817.December7,2001.
643
VOL.371,DECEMBER7,2001
643
644
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy
PETITIONforreviewofadecisionoftheShariaDistrict
CourtofZamboangaCity.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Castillo, Laman, Tan, Pantaleon & San Jose for
petitioner.
Sadain & Sadain Law Offices and Marquinez
Pabalate & Associatesforprivaterespondent.
Alentajan Law Office collaborating counsel for
respondent.
PARDO,J.:
Is a wife, a Christian who converted to Islam before her
marriage to a Muslim and converted back to Catholicism
upontheirseparation,stillboundbythemorallawsofIslam
inthedeterminationofherfitnesstobethecustodianofher
children?
Weapplycivillawinthebestinterestofthechildren.
The Facts
RespondentFouzi(then31yearsofage)andSabrina(then
20yearsofage)weremarriedonFebruary3,1988,atthe
Manila
645
VOL.371,DECEMBER7,2001
645
Hotel,Ermita,ManilaunderIslamicrites. OnOctober21,
1987, or four (4) months before her marriage, Sabrina
became a Muslim by conversion. However, the conversion
wasnotregisteredwiththeCodeofMuslimPersonalLaws
ofthePhilippines.
AlabangVillage,Muntinlupa,M.M.,pp.303304.
5ExhibitT,AffidavitofMr.CarlosA.Batalla,Records,p.507508.
6ExhibitsEL,PicturesofPetitioner,Records,492499.
646
646
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy
7
647
VOL.371,DECEMBER7,2001
647
98070.
15DatedMay8,1998,Records,p.309.
16Records,pp.338362.
17Records,pp.370371.
18Records,pp.387393.
648
648
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy
dantisfurtherorderedtocomplywiththeorderofthisCourtdated
July 12, 1996, to allow plaintiff to exercise his right of parental
authority over their minor children with that of the defendant in
accordance with article 71 of P.D. 1083, the Code of Muslim
PersonalLaws.
LetthecontinuationofthiscasebesetonJuly15,1999at8:30
19
inthemorning.
OnJuly15,1999,thetrialcourtdecidedtomoveforwardto
thenextstageofthecaseandallowedrespondentFouzito
presentevidenceex parte.
20
On August 18, 1999, the court issued an order giving
respondent fifteen (15) days to submit his formal offer of
evidence and fifteen (15) days from receipt of transcript of
stenographicnotestosubmitmemorandum.
The Sharia District Courts Decision
On November 16, 1999, the Sharia Court rendered a
decision,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,foregoingconsidered,judgmentisherebyrendered:
(a) Awarding the custody of the minors Abdulaziz Artadi
Bondagjy and Amouaje Artadi Bondagjy in favor of their
natural father, petitioner Fouzi Ali Bondagjy; and for this
purpose ordering the respondent Sabrina Artadi Bondagjy
oranypersonhavingthecareofsaidminorsinhersteador
behalf,toturnover,relinguishandsurrenderthecustodyof
said minors to their natural father, the petitioner in this
caseFouziAliBondagjy;
(b) Ordering the petitioner Fouzi Ali Bondagjy to ensure that
649
VOL.371,DECEMBER7,2001
649
Hence,thispetition.
Ontheotherhand,theShariaCourtfoundthatrespondent
Fouzi was capable both personally and financially
to look
24
afterthebestinterestofhisminorchildren.
_______________
21Rollo,pp.3661.
22 Filed on January 7, 2000. On April 5, 2000, we gave due couse to
thepetition(Rollo,pp.220221).
23Rollo,p.59.
24Rollo,p.60.
650
650
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy
Asarule,factualfindingsofthelowercourtsarefinaland
26
binding upon the parties. The Court is not expected or
required to examine or contrast the
oral and documentary
27
evidencesubmittedbytheparties. However,althoughthis
Courtisnotatrieroffacts,ithastheauthoritytoreviewor
reverse the factual findings of the lower courts if28we find
thatthesedonotconformtotheevidenceonrecord.
29
InReyes vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the
exceptionstotherulethatfactualfindingsofthetrialcourt
arefinalandconclusiveandmaynotbereviewedonappeal
arethefollowing:(1)whentheinferencemadeismanifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a grave
abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded
entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when
the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its
findings,
_______________
25Ibid.
26Cang
v. Court of Appeals,367Phil129;296SCRA128(1998),citing
Phil.366;259SCRA65(1996).
28 Philippine
651
VOL.371,DECEMBER7,2001
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy
651
wentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseandthesameiscontrary
to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when
thefindingsoftheCourtofAppealsarecontrarytothoseof
thetrialcourt;(8)whenthefindingsoffactareconclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based;(9)whentheCourtofAppealsmanifestlyoverlooked
certainrelevantfactsnotdisputedbythepartiesandwhich,
if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
are premised on the absence of evidence and are
contradictedbytheevidenceonrecord.
Fitness as a Mother
The burden is upon respondent to prove that petitioner is
notworthytohavecustodyofherchildren.Wefindthatthe
evidencepresentedbytherespondentwasnotsufficientto
establish her unfitness according to Muslim law or the
FamilyCode.
In Pilipinas Shell Corp. vs. Court of Appeals (April 20,
2001,G.R.No.114923,357SCRA30), we said that in the
hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable
doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear and
convincing evidence, preponderance
of evidence and
30
substantialevidence,inthatorder.
Thestandardinthedeterminationofsufficiencyofproof,
however,isnotrestrictedtoMuslimlaws.TheFamilyCode
shallbetakenintoconsiderationindecidingwhetheranon
Muslim woman is incompetent. What determines her
capacityisthestandardlaiddownbytheFamilyCodenow
thatsheisnotaMuslim.
Indeed,whatdeterminesthefitnessofanyparentisthe
abilitytoseetothephysical,educational,socialandmoral
31
welfare of the children, and the ability to give them a
healthy environment as well as physical and financial
support taking into consideration the respective resources
andsocialandmoralsituationsoftheparents.
The record shows that petitioner is equally financially
capable of providing for all the needs of her children. The
childrenwentto
_______________
30CitingManalo
31Unson
v. RoldanConfesor,215SCRA808(1992).
III v. Navarro,101SCRA182(1980).
652
652
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy
Thewelfareoftheminorsisthecontrollingconsiderationon
33
theissue.
In ascertaining the welfare and best interest of the
children, courts are mandated by the Family
Code to take
34
intoaccountallrelevantconsiderations.
Article 211 of the Family Code provides that the father
and mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over
thepersonsoftheircommonchildren.
Similarly,P.D.No.1083isclearthatwheretheparents
arenotdivorcedorlegallyseparated,thefatherandmother
shalljointly exercise just and reasonable parental authority
andfulfilltheirresponsibilityovertheirlegitimatechildren.
35
InSagalaEslao v. Court of Appeals, westated:
xxx[Parentalauthority]isamassofrightsandobligationswhich
thelawgrantstoparentsforthepurposeofthechildrensphysical
preservation and development, as well as the cultivation of their
36
intellect and the education of their heart and senses. As regards
parental authority, there is no power, but a task; no complex of
rights,butasumofduties;nosovereigntybutasacredtrustforthe
37
welfareoftheminor.
xxx
_______________
32Rollo,pp.301302.
33Perkins
34Espiritu
v. Perkins,57Phil.217(1932).
v. Court of Appeals,312Phil.431;242SCRA362(1995).
Sr. v. Court of
Appeals,312Phil482;242SCRA407(1995).
36 Reyes v. Alvarez, 8 Phil. 732; (1907); 2 Manresa 21; cited in I A.
CivilLaw,295(4thed.,1964).
653
VOL.371,DECEMBER7,2001
653
39
reasontothecontrary,isgiventothemother.
However, the award of custody to the wife does not
deprive the husband of 40
parental authority. In the case of
Silva v. Court of Appeals, wesaidthat:
Parents have the natural right, as well as the moral and legal
duty, to care for their children, see to their upbringing and
safeguard their best interest and welfare. This authority and
responsibilitymaynotbeundulydeniedtheparents;neithermayit
be renounced by them. Even when the parents are estranged and
theiraffectionforeachotherislost,theattachmentandfeelingfor
theiroffspringsinvariablyremainunchanged.Neitherthelawnor
the courts allow this affinity to suffer absent, of course, any real,
graveandimminentthreattothewellbeingofthechild.
v. IAC,217Phil714;132SCRA745(1984).
40Supra.
41Art.II,Sec.12,Constitution.
654
654
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy
The Fallo
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
decision in Spl. Proc. No. 1396 is hereby SET ASIDE.
Petitioner SABRINA ARTADI BONDAGJY shall have
custody over minors Abdulaziz, and Amouaje Bondagjy,
until the children reach majority age. Both spouses shall
have joint responsibility over all expenses of rearing the
children.
The father, FOUZI ALI BONDAGJY, shall have
visitorial rights at least once a week and may take the
childrenoutonlywiththewrittenconsentofthemother.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and
YnaresSantiago, JJ.,concur.
Petition granted, judgment set aside. Custody over the
minor children awarded to petitioner.
Notes.While it is true that the determination of the
right to the custody of minor children is relevant in cases
where the parents, who are married to each other, are for
some reason separated from each other, it does not follow
thatitcannotariseinanyothersituation.(David vs. Court
of Appeals,250SCRA82[1995])
Anactionforcompulsoryrecognitionandenforcementof
successionalrightswhichwasfiledpriortotheadventofthe
Family Code must be governed by Article 285 of the Civil
Code and not by Article 175, paragraph 2 of the Family
Code. (Aruego, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 711
[1996])
The jurisdiction of a court, whether in criminal or civil
cases, once attached, cannot be ousted by subsequent
happeningsorevents,althoughofacharacterwhichwould
have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first
instance, and the Court retains jurisdiction until it finally
disposes of the case. (Aruego, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 254
SCRA711[1996])
o0o
655