Joycelyn Pablo-Gualberto, petitioner vs. Crisanto Rafaelito Gualberto, respondent.

G.R. No. 154994, 28 June 2005

Doctrines A persons sexual preference or moral alone does not prove incompetency of a
person to fulfill parental obligations.
A writ of habeas corpus may be issued only when the rightful custody of any person
is withheld from the person entitled thereto.
The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is more cautiously regarded, since the
latter requires the performance of a particular act that tends to go beyond the maintenance
of the status quo.
Facts Respondent Crisanto Gualberto filed on 12 March 2002 in the RTC of Paraaque City
a petition for nullification of his marriage to his wife Joycelyn Pablo-Gualberto as well as
(ancillary) pendente lite custody of their minor child Rafaello. He alleged that she took
Rafaello with her from their conjugal home in Paraaque City in early February 2002.
Rafaello, barely 4 years old, was also enrolled in Infant Toddlers Discovery Center in BF
Homes, Paraaque City. During the trial, Crisanto testified that Joycelyn took their child to
her stepparents home in Caminawit, San Jose, Mindoro Occidental, and that he failed to see
his child despite his efforts to search for them (Joycelyn and Rafaello). Another witness, Mr.
Renato Santos, testified during the trial that he was commissioned by Crisanto to conduct
surveillance on Joycelyn and he came up with a conclusion that Joycelyn was having
relationship with a Noreen Gay Cuidadano in Cebu City.
On 3 April 2002, RTC Paraaque Judge Helen Ricafort granted Crisantos prayer for
custody pendente lite of Rafaello. The Court of Appeals ruled in Crisantos favor and awarded
him pendente lite custody of the child.
Joycelyn appealed the verdict of the Court of Appeals and the RTC, arguing that her
child Rafaello cannot be separated from her, because Article 213 of the Family Code provides
that when the parents are (legally) separated and the child is less than seven (7) years old,
the child cannot separated from the mother (Joycelyn) unless there are compelling reasons
found by the court where custody can be awarded to childs father/husband. Meanwhile,
based on the same provision of the Family Code, Crisanto argues that Joycelyns acts,
especially her relationship with a lesbian, provides compelling reasons to award him custody
of Rafaello.
Issues and held by the Supreme Court
(1) W/N Crisanto Gualberto can have custody of pendente lite custody of their minor child
Rafaello? NO. The Supreme Court ruled in Joycelyns favor that Rafaellos custody remains
with her. The Court reasoned out that held that sexual preference or moral alone does not
prove a persons neglect or incompetency to fulfill parental obligations and the husband
must clearly establish that the wifes moral lapses have had an adverse effect on the childs
welfare or have distracted her from exercising proper parental care. The Court stated that it
/archie.manansala
Archibald Jose T. Manansala
CEU School of Law and Jurisprudence

Joycelyn Pablo-Gualberto, petitioner vs. Crisanto Rafaelito Gualberto, respondent.

G.R. No. 154994, 28 June 2005
must be also demonstrated that a womans relationship with another woman (lesbian) was
not conducive to the childs development.
(2) W/N the remedies of writ of habeas corpus and the preliminary mandatory injunction
will be issued in favor of Crisanto Gualberto? NO. The Court also stated that since it ruled
that Rafaellos custody remains with Joycelyn, Crisantos petition for writ of habeas corpus
and the preliminary mandatory injunction prayed will have no legal and factual basis. The
Court stated that the issuance of writ of habeas corpus does not apply to the present case, as
a writ of habeas corpus may be issued only when the rightful custody of any person is
withheld from the person entitled thereto. Also, since Crisanto failed to prove a clear and
unmistakable right to have Rafaellos custody, the Court held that the ancillary remedy of
preliminary mandatory injunction cannot be granted. The Court held that unlike an ordinary
preliminary injunction, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is more cautiously
regarded, since the latter requires the performance of a particular act that tends to go beyond
the maintenance of the status quo.

/archie.manansala
Archibald Jose T. Manansala
CEU School of Law and Jurisprudence