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 for Article 91 of the Family Code: Munoz v. Ramirez and Carlos

FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, JR., Petitioner, v. ERLINDA RAMIREZ and ELISEO CARLOS, Respondents G.R. No. 156125, 25 August 2010 FACTS: The residential lot in the subject property was registered in the name of Erlinda Ramirez, married to Eliseo Carlos (respondents). On 6 April 1989, Eliseo, a Bureau of Internal Revenue employee, mortgaged said lot, with Erlinda’s consent, to the GSIS to secure a P136,500.00 housing loan, payable within twenty (20) years, through monthly salary deductions of P1,687.66. The respondents then constructed a thirty-six (36)-square meter, two-story residential house on the lot. On 14 July 1993, the title to the subject property was transferred to the petitioner by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, dated 30 April 1992, executed by Erlinda, for herself and as attorney-in-fact of Eliseo, for a stated consideration of P602,000.00. On 24 September 1993, the respondents filed a complaint with the RTC for the nullification of the deed of absolute sa...
Read more

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 org...
Read more

Case Digest: Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent | A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012

Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012 Facts:     Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a lawyer. From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the connivance of Andres Magat – willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against the complainants by using false pretenses and deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of land belonging to the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of the complainants.     It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and deliver to him PhP 495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of the subject land. He further committed misrepresentation by presenting himself as the lawyer of ...
Read more