Article Explanation: Articles 209, 210, 211, 212 and 213 of the Family Code

Art. 209. Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the person and property of their unemancipated children, parental authority and responsibility shall include the caring for and rearing them for civic consciousness and efficiency and the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being. (n)

Explanation:
Paternal authority patria petestas is the mass of rights and obligations which parents have in relation to the person and property of their children until their emancipation, and even after this under certain circumstances.

The article emphasizes that pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the person and property of their unemancipated children, parental authority and responsibility includes: (a) the caring for and rearing of such children for civic consciousness and efficiency; and (b) the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being.

Art. 210. Parental authority and responsibility may not be renounced or transferred except in the cases authorized by law. (313a)

Explanation:
Parental authority can not be renounced or transferred except in the cases authorized by law, such as: (a) guardianship; (b) adoption; and (c) deprivation or suspension of parental authority (Arts. 223-224).

Art. 211. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their common children. In case of disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary.

Children shall always observe respect and reverence towards their parents and are obliged to obey them as long as the children are under parental authority. (311a)

Explanation:
Both spouses exercise parental authority over their common children and in case of disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary.

The children shall always observe respect and reverence toward their parents, whether or not they are not under parental authority. The children are obliged to obey his or her parents as long as they are under parental authority.

Art. 212. In case of absence or death of either parent, the parent present shall continue exercising parental authority. The remarriage of the surviving parent shall not affect the parental authority over the children, unless the court appoints another person to be the guardian of the person or property of the children. (n)

Explanation:
The parent present shall continue exercising parental authority. The remarriage of the surviving parent shall not affect the parental authority over the children, unless the court appoints another person to be guardian of the person or property of the children.

Art. 213. In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the Court. The Court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over seven years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit. (n)

No child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.

Explanation:
In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the court. The court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over seven years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit. No child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the parent chosen is unfit. The task of choosing the parent to whom custody should be awarded is not a ministerial function to be determined by a simple determination of the age of a minor child. Whether a child is under or over seven years of age, the paramount criterion must always be the child’s interest. Discretion is given to the court to decide who can best assure the welfare of the child, and award the custody on the basis of that consideration. To be sure, the welfare, best interests, the benefit, and the good of the child must be determined as of the time that either parent is chosen to be the custodian. When the parents of the child are separated, Article 213 of the Family Code is the applicable law.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion | A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978 Facts:     The respondent is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Supreme Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rules of Court 139-A and the provisions of Paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of the IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.     Edilion contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues and that as a consequence of this, compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admi
Read more

Case Digest for Articles 143-146: Carino v. Carino G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001

SUSAN NICDAO CARIÑO, petitioner, v. SUSAN YEE CARIÑO, respondent. G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001 Facts: In 1969 SPO4 Santiago Cariño married Susan Nicdao Cariño. He had 2 children with her. In 1992, SPO4 contracted a second marriage, this time with Susan Yee Cariño. In 1988, prior to his second marriage, SPO4 is already bedridden and he was under the care of Yee. In 1992, he died 13 days after his marriage with Yee. Thereafter, the spouses went on to claim the benefits of SPO4. Nicdao was able to claim a total of P140,000.00 while Yee was able to collect a total of P21,000.00. In 1993, Yee filed an action for collection of sum of money against Nicdao. She wanted to have half of the P140k. Yee admitted that her marriage with SPO4 was solemnized during the subsistence of the marriage b/n SPO4 and Nicdao but the said marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due to the absence of a valid marriage license as certified by the local civil registrar. Yee also claimed t
Read more

Case Digest: Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent | A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014

Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014 Facts:     Que accused Revilla, Jr. of willfully delaying the final judgment of the lower court against his client. Respondent successfully filed a petition of certiorari before the Court of Appeals, two petitions of annulment of title and a petition for annulment of judgment before the Regional Trial Court, and a petition for declaratory execution of the lower court’s decision against his client. Issue:     Whether or not the respondent violated various canons and provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Held:     Respondent’s abuse of court remedies by filing multiple actions praying for the same cause delayed the execution of the final judgment of the court. The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico who was the previous
Read more