Case Digest: Article 216 of Family Code (Flores vs. De Esteban)

EDUARDO S. FLORES, PETITIONER,

VS.

MARIA DE LEON VDA. DE ESTEBAN, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. L-8768, August 26, 1955

JUGO, J.:

Facts: Eduardo S. Flores was married to Adoracion Esteban. He had a son with her named Reynaldo Cenon E. Flores. On December 27, 1953 his wife died. Afterwards, their son lived with Adoracion’s mother, the respondent herein. De Esteban refused to surrender Reynaldo to the custody of the petitioner. So, Eduardo filed a petition.

This Court ordered the respondent to file her answer with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan to which this case was referred. Said court forwarded here the answer of the respondent in which she alleged in substance that she has had the custody of the child since he was twenty days old until now that the child is eight years old, supporting him and sending him to the primary school in Norzagaray, Bulacan, paying for all school expenses; that she is not restraining the liberty of said minor but that the latter refuses to go with his father whom he hardly knows.

The petition was not directly raised by the petitioner but the paternal grandfather, Macario Flores, who resides in Pateros, Rizal. However, Petitioner cannot take care of the child because he is now living and working in Okinawa, Japan.

Issue: Whether the child should be taken care of by the paternal grandfather or the maternal grandmother as a substitute guardian.

Held: The respondent grandmother should have the legal custody over him, without prejudice to the obligation of the father to contribute to his maintenance. It should be considered that the maternal grandmother is almost a mother to the child having taken care of him since he was twenty days old up to now, and feels the love of a mother for him. Since the death of the mother Adoracion the respondent has acted as the mother of the child. There exist mutual love between the grandmother and the child; her affection is even greater than that of the mother herself.

In all questions on the care, custody, education and property of children, the latter's welfare shall be paramount.