Luna v. IAC

LUNA v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

FC. 220-222: PARENTAL AUTHORITY OVER THE CHILDREN'S PERSON
HORACIO LUNA and LIBERTY HIZON-LUNA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

GR NO L-68374 June 18, 1985
In child custody cases, the judgment of appellate courts awarding custody to child’s biological
parents may be stayed where during hearings on execution the child manifests that she will kill
herself and escape if given to custody of her biological parents. Article 363 of the Civil Code
provides that in all questions relating to the care, custody, education, and property of the
children, the latter’s welfare is paramount. This means that the best interest of the minor can
override procedural rules and even the right of parents to the custody of their children.
FACTS:
Maria Lourdes Santos is an illegitimate child of Horacio Luna who is married to Liberty Hizon-
Luna. Maria Lourdes Santos is married to Sixto Salumbides, and are the parents of Shirley
Santos Salumbides, who is the subject of this child custody case.
Two or four months after the birth of Shirley Salumbides on 7 April 1975, her parents gave her
to Spouses Luna, a childless couple with considerable means, who thereafter showered her
with love and affection and brought her up as their very own. The couple doted upon Shirley
who called them “Mama” and “Papa”. She calls her natural parents “Mommy” and “Daddy”.
When Shirley reached four years old, she was enrolled at the Maryknoll College in Quezon City,
where she is now in Grade III.
A few months before September 1980, Spouses Luna decided to take Shirley abroad and show
her Disneyland and other places of interest in America. Shirley looked forward to this trip and
was excited about it. However, when the spouses asked for the Salumbides’ written consent to
the child’s application for a US visa, the Salumbides spouses refused to give it, to spouses
Luna’s surprise and chagrin. Shirley was utterly disappointed. Hence, spouses Luna had to
leave without Shirley whom they left with spouses Salumbides, upon the latter’s request.
Spouses Luna left instructions with their chauffeur to take and fetch Shirley from Maryknoll
College every school day.
When spouses Luna returned on 29 October 1980, they learned that spouses Salumbides had
transferred Shirley to the St. Scholastica College. The spouses Salumbides also refused to
return Shirley to spouses Luna. Thus, spouses Luna filed a petition for habeas corpus with the
Court of First Instance against spouses Salumbides to produce the person of Shirley and deliver
her to their care and custody.
The CFI granted the writ, declaring spouses Luna entitled to the child’s custody. Upon appeal
to the CA, the CFI decision was reversed, and another order was entered ordering
spouses Luna to turn over Shirley to spouses Salumbides. Spouses Luna filed a petition for
review of the CA decision, but the Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit.
LUNA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
The judgment became final and the case was remanded to the court of origin and assigned to
the RTC which ordered the issuance of a writ of execution to satisfy and enforce the resolution
of the SC which affirmed the CA decision. The execution of the judgment was vigorously
opposed by spouses Luna who filed a motion for reconsideration of the order and to set
aside the writ of execution on the ground of supervening events and circumstances.
When the RTC judge called a conference and conducted hearings on the said motion for
reconsideration and to set aside the writ of execution, Shirley manifested during such
hearings that she would kill herself or run away from home if she should ever be
separated from spouses Luna and forced to stay with spouses Salumbides. Dra. Cynthia
Dulay Bruce, a child psychologist, found that Shirley has only grown more embittered, cautious,
distrusting of her biological parents and that she would be very unhappy with them since they do
not understand her needs, are selfish to her, and don’t know how to care for her.
The RTC denied the motion to set aside the writ of execution.
ISSUE: Whether procedural rules, more particularly the duty of the lower courts to enforce a
final decision of appellate courts in child custody cases, should prevail over and above the
desire and preference of the child to stay with her grandparents [spouses Luna] instead of her
biological parents [spouses Salumbides]
RULING:
NO. When a judgment of a higher court is returned to the lower court, the only function of the
latter court is the ministerial one of issuing the order of execution. However, a stay of execution
may be authorized whenever it is necessary to accomplish the ends of justice as when there
had been a change in the situation of the parties which makes such execution inequitable. In
this case, the child’s manifestation that she would kill herself or run away from home if she
should be taken away from spouses Luna and forced to live with her biological parents [spouses
Salumbides] is a circumstance that would make the execution of the judgment inequitable,
unfair, and unjust.
Article 363 of the Civil Code provides that in all questions relating to the care, custody,
education, and property of the children, the latter’s welfare is paramount. This means that the
best interest of the minor can override procedural rules and even the rights of the parents to the
custody of their children. Since the very life and existence of the minor is at stake and the child
is in an age when she can exercise an intelligence 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.
In her letters to the Court, Shirley depicted her biological parents as selfish and cruel and who
beat her often and that they do not love her. Shirley has grown more embittered, cautious, and
distrusting of her biological parents. To return her to the custody of spouses Salumbides to face
LUNA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
the same emotional environment which she is now complaining of would be indeed traumatic
and cause irreparable damage to the child.

Luna v. IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luna v. IAC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luna v. IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LUNA v.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

HORACIO LUNA and LIBERTY HIZON-LUNA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

You might also like