..[T]he child is in an age when she can exercise an intelligent choice, the courts can do no less than respect, enforce, and give meaning and substance to that choice and uphold her right to live in an atmosphere conducive to her physical, moral, and intellectual development.
HORACIO LUNA and LIBERTY HIZON-LUNA vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON ROQUE A. TAMAYO, as Presiding Jdge !" Regi!na# Tria# C!r$, NCR Bran%& C'''I( Ma)a$i, Me$r! Mani#a, MARIA LOURDE* *ANTO*, and *I'TO *ALUMBIDE*
Action: Review on certiorari of the decision of the respondent appellate court in case CA-G. R. No. SP-018!" entitled: # Horacio Luna, et al., petitioners, versus Hon. Roue !. Tamayo, Tamayo, etc., et al., respondents," which respondents," which affir$ed an order den%in& a $otion to restrain the e'ecution of a final (ud&$ent rendered in a ha)eas corpus case. +a%$s
Private respondent *aria +ourdes Santos is an ille&iti$ate child of the petitioner ,oracio +una who is $arried to his co-petitioner +i)ert% ,ion-+una. *aria +ourdes Santos is $arried to her correspondent Si'to Salu$)ides" and are the parents of Shirle% Santos Salu$)ides" also nown as Shirle% +una Salu$)ides" who is the su)(ect of this child custod% case. /wo or four $onths after the )irth of Shirle% Salu$)ides on April " 1!" her parents &ave her to the petitioners" a childless couple with considera)le $eans" who thereafter showered her with love and affection and )rou&ht her up as their ver% own. /he couple doted upon Shirle% who called the$ #*a$a# and #Papa#. She calls her natural parents #*o$$%# and #2add%.# 3hen Shirle% reached the a&e of four 456 %ears in 1!!" she was enrolled at the *ar%noll Colle&e in 7ueon Cit%" where she is now in Grade . A few $onths )efore Septe$)er" Septe$)er" 1!80" her #*a$a# and #Papa# decided to tae Shirle% a)road and show her 2isne%land and other places of interest in A$erica. Shirle% looed forward to this trip and was e'cited a)out it. ,oweve ,owever" r" when the petiti petitioners oners ased for the respondents9 respondents9 written consent to the child9s application for a .S. visa" the respondents refused to &ive it" to the petitioners9 surprise and cha&rin c ha&rin Shirle% was utterl% disappointed. As a result" the petitioners had to leave witho without ut Shirle% who$ the% left with the private respondents" respondents" upon the latter9s re;uest. re;uest. /he petitioners" however" left instructions with their chauffeur to tae and fetch Shirle% fro$ *ar%noll Colle&e ever% school da%. 3hen the petitioners returned on
n view thereof" the petitioners filed a petition for ha)eas corpus with the Court of >irst nstance of Rial" ?ranch @" a&ainst the private respondents to produce the person of Shirle% and deliver her to their care and custod%. /he court decided the case on *arch !" 1!81" declarin& the petitioners entitled to the child9s custod% and forthwith &ranted the writ pra%ed for. /he private respondents appealed to the then Court of Appeals and in a decision dated April " 1!8=" the appealed decision was reversed and set aside and another entered" orderin& the petitioners" a$on& other thin&s" to turn over Shirle% to the private respondents. /he herein petitioners filed a $otion for the reconsideration of the decision )ut their $otion was denied. Conse;uentl%" the petitioners filed a petition for review of the decision of the appellate court.
who had si&nified her intention p ill herself or run awa% fro$ ho$e if she should )e separated fro$ her &randparents and forced to live with her )iolo&ical parents.
Rulin&: No. t is a well-nown doctrine that when a (ud&$ent of a hi&her court is returned to the lower court" the onl% function of the latter court is the $inisterial one of issuin& the order of e'ecution. /he lower court cannot var% the $andate of the superior court" or e'a$ine it" for an% other purpose than e'ecution nor review it upon an% $atter decided on appeal or error apparent nor inter$eddle with it further than to settle so $uch as has )een de$anded. ,owever" it is also e;uall% well-nown that a sta% of e'ecution of a final (ud&$ent $a% )e authoried whenever it is necessar% to acco$plish the ends of (ustice as when there had )een a chan&e in the situation of the parties which $aes such e'ecution ine;uita)le or when it appears that the controvers% had never )een su)$itted to the (ud&$ent of the court or when it appears that the writ of e'ecution has )een i$providentl% issued or that it is defective in su)stance or is issued a&ainst the wron& part% or that the (ud&e$ent de)t has )een paid or otherwise satisfied or when the writ has )een issued without authorit%.
/he petition should )e" as it is here)% GRAN/D2 and the writ pra%ed for issued" settin& aside the (ud&$ent of the respondent nter$ediate Appellate Court in CA-G.R. No. SP-018!" and restrainin& the respondent (ud&e andEor his successors fro$ enforcin& the (ud&$ent rendered )% the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-1==1=. entitled: #,oracio +una and +i)ert% ,ion+una" petitioners-appellees" versus *aria +ourdes Santos and Si'to Salu$)ides" respondentsappellants.# /he decision rendered in Spec. Proc. No. !51 of the Court of >irst nstance of Rial &rantin& the herein petitioners custod% of the child Shirle% Salu$)ides should )e $aintained.
Rationale: /he $anifestation of the child Shirle% that she would ill herself or run awa% fro$ ho$e if she should )e taen awa% fro$ the herein petitioners and forced to live with the private respondents" $ade durin& the hearin&s on the petitioners9 $otion to set aside the writ of e'ecution and reiterated in her letters to the $e$)ers of the Court dated Septe$)er 1!" 1!85 and Banuar% =" 1!8" and durin& the hearin& of the case )efore this Court" is a circu$stance that would $ae the e'ecution of the (ud&$ent rendered in Spec. Proc. No. !51 of the Court of >irst nstance of Rial ine;uita)le" unfair and un(ust" if not ille&al. Article FF of the Civil Code provides that in all ;uestions relatin& to the care" custod%" education and propert% of the children" the latter9s welfare is para$ount. /his $eans that the )est interest of the $inor can override procedural rules and even the ri&hts of parents to the custod% of their children. Since" in this case" the ver% life and e'istence of the $inor is at stae and the child is in an a&e when she can e'ercise an intelli&ent choice" the courts can do no less than respect" enforce and &ive $eanin& and su)stance to that choice and uphold her ri&ht to live in an at$osphere conducive to
her ph%sical" $oral and intellectual develop$ent. / /he threat $a% )e proven e$pt%" )ut Shirle% has a ri&ht to a wholeso$e fa$il% life that will provide her with love" care and understandin&" &uidance and counselin&. and $oral and $aterial securit%. 0 ?ut what if the threat is for real. ?esides" in her letters to the $e$)ers of the Court" Shirle% depicted her )iolo&ical parents as selfish and cruel and who )eat her often and that the% do not love her. And" as pointed out )% the child ps%cholo&ist" Shirle% has &rown $ore e$)itered cautious and dis$issin& of her )iolo&ical parents. /o return her to the custod% of the private respondents to face the sa$e e$otional environ$ent which she is now co$plainin& of would )e indeed trau$atic and cause irrepara)le da$a&e to the child. As re;uested )% her" let us not destro% her future.
