LACSON V. SAN JOSE-LACSON August 30, 1968
Under Article 136 (Voluntary Separation of Property) Digest by Apesa Chungalao Three consolidated cases: Alfonso Lacson v. Carmen San-Jose Lacson and the Court of Appeals (L-23482) Carmen San-Jose Lacson v. Alfonso Lacson (L-23767) Alfonso Lacson v. Carmen San Jose-Lacson Background: Alfonso and Carmen were married on February 14, 1953. They had four children. On January 9, 1963 Carmen left the conjugal home in Bacolod and resided in Manila. On March 12, 1963 she filed a complaint in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC) for custody of all their children as well as support for them and herself. However, through the assistance of their respective lawyers, the spouses reached an amicable settlement as to custody of the kids, support, and separation of property. On April 27, 1963, they filed a joint petition with the CFI of Negros Occidental, submitting that they had mutually agreed upon the dissolution of their conjugal partnership. The terms included a) separation of property, b) all earnings of each spouse shall belong to that spouse exclusively, c) the custody of the two elder children shall be awarded to Alfonso and the two younger children to Carmen, d) Alfonso shall pay Carmen a monthly allowance of P200.00 for the support of the children, and e) each petitioner shall have reciprocal rights of visitation and every summer the former spouses shall swap [my word] kids. For that particular year, however, Carmen was allowed custody of all four children until June of 1963, when she was supposed to return the two older children to Alfonso¶s custody. Finding the foregoing joint petition as conformable to the law, the CFI issued an order approving their compromise agreement on the very same day. On May 7, however, Carmen filed a motion with the JDRC alleging that the compromise agreement was the only way she could get custody of all the children and praying that she be relieved of the agreement pertaining to the custody and visitation of the children and that she now be awarded full custody [bitch]. Naturally, Alfonso opposed the motion and the JDRC ruled in his favour. Carmen went to the Court of Appeals and the CA certified the case to the Supreme Court. Carmen went to the CFI and filed a motion for reconsideration, basically claiming the same thing. Alfonso opposed. The CFI favored Alfonso and ordered Carmen to return the two older children by June, on pain of contempt. It is from this decision that the instant case springs. Carmen instituted certiorari proceedings with the CA against the CFI, saying the CFI committed grave abuse of discretion and acted in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the immediate execution of the compromise agreement. The CA declared void the portion of the agreement pertaining to the custody of children. Issue/Held/Ratio: Was the assailed compromise agreement²and the judgment of the CFI grounded on said agreement² conformable to law? YES²but only as far as the separation of property of spouses and the dissolution of the conjugal partnership, in accordance with Article 191 of the Civil Code. The spouses did not appear to have any creditors who would have been prejudiced by their arrangement. At the time of the decision the spouses had been separated five years and so the propriety of severing their financial and proprietary interests was manifest. (However, the Court maintained that approving the separation of property and dissolution of conjugal partnership did not amount to recognition or legalization of de facto separation.) As to the custody of the children, they were all below 7 years of age at the time of the agreement and so the CA was correct in awarding the custody to the mother. The Court was also ³loath to uphold the couple¶s agreement regarding the custody of the children´, citing rights of the children to proper care not
anchored on the solely on the whims of his or her parents. Courts must decide fitness of parents for custody.
