QUERUBIN - v - QUERUBIN
EN BANC, G.R. No. L-3693, July 29, 1950
Facts:
1.
Silvestre
Querubin [respondent] is from Caoayan, Ilocos Sur, of Filipino parents. In 1926
he left for the United States in order to study at Los Angeles, California, but
he had the intention to return to his native country. In
1943, Silvester married the Margaret [petitioner], in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
As a result of this marriage was born Querubina Querubin [minor child whose
custody is the subject in this case].
2. Margaret filed in 1948 a divorce suit against the respondent, based on "mental cruelty." The divorce was granted to the Silvestre based on the infidelity of Margaret and a counterclaim he presented. In 1949, and at the request of the Silvestre, the Superior Court of Los Angeles issued an interlocutory order providing that the care, custody and control of Querubina is awarded to Silvestre. Silvestre left San Francisco and returned to Manila in 1949. He arrived in Caoayan, Ilocos Sur, where he currently lives, taking with him Querubina, whom he brought to the Philippines because, as a father, he wanted to prevent her from getting to know the unseemly behavior of her own mother. The respondent wanted his daughter to be educated in an environment of high morality.
2. Margaret filed in 1948 a divorce suit against the respondent, based on "mental cruelty." The divorce was granted to the Silvestre based on the infidelity of Margaret and a counterclaim he presented. In 1949, and at the request of the Silvestre, the Superior Court of Los Angeles issued an interlocutory order providing that the care, custody and control of Querubina is awarded to Silvestre. Silvestre left San Francisco and returned to Manila in 1949. He arrived in Caoayan, Ilocos Sur, where he currently lives, taking with him Querubina, whom he brought to the Philippines because, as a father, he wanted to prevent her from getting to know the unseemly behavior of her own mother. The respondent wanted his daughter to be educated in an environment of high morality.
3.
At the request of Margaret, the
Superior Court of Los Angeles, California modified the previous interlocutory
decree. It elaborated that at the previous time of trial, custody was
apparently denied to the petitioner because she was then
living with another man but now
that she is married to this man with well equipped
home, and that she appears to be a devoted
mother, the custody of the child shall be awarded to Margaret and Silvestre shall have
the right of reasonable visitation. In 1950, Margaret, through her lawyer, filed a writ of
habeas corpus with the Ilocos Sur CFI claiming the custody of her daughter
Querubina, citing the interlocutory decree[1]
[see footnote] of the California court which granted her such custody. Margaret
submits that under Article 48 of Rule 39, the interlocutory decree of the Los
Angeles Court, California, must be fulfilled in the Philippines. After the
corresponding hearing, the Judge denied the request. Margaret appeals to this
Court.
Issue: WON above mentioned interlocutory order is enforceable in the Philippines.
Held: NO!
Ruling:
A judgment rendered by a competent court, having jurisdiction in one state, is conclusive on the merits in the courts of every other state, when made the basis of an action and the merits cannot be reinvestigated. But before such a judgment rendered in one state is entitled to acceptance, in the courts of another state, as conclusive on the merits, it must be a final judgment and not merely an interlocutory decree. An interlocutory decree on the custody of a minor is not a final decision. By its nature it is not firm. It is subject to changes as circumstances change. Because the interlocutory decree does not constitute a final decision, its fulfillment cannot be requested in the Philippines. In general, a decree of divorce entrusting the custody of a child of the marriage to one of the spouses is respected by the courts of other states "at the time and under the circumstances of its rendition but that such a decree has no controlling effects in another state as to facts or conditions arising subsequently to the date of the decree; and the courts of the latter state may, in proper proceedings, award the custody otherwise upon proof of matters subsequent to the decree which justify the change in the interest of the child."
In the present case the circumstances have changed. Querubina is no longer in Los Angeles but in Caoayan, Ilocos Sur. She is under the care of her father. There is a huge distance from Los Angeles and the present domicile of the minor and the cost of the ticket to that city would be very high, and it is still possible that this was beyond the reach of Margaret. There is no evidence that she is able to pay for the travel expenses of the minor and her companion. She is not a package of cigarettes that can be mailed to Los Angeles. The father, more than anyone, is interested in the care and education of his daughter, and has savings of more than P2,000 deposited in a bank, we believe that the Court will not err in denying the request. The Court could not, without satisfactory evidence, dispose without remorse of conscience the delivery of the girl to Margaret’s lawyer: it is her obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of her. It is not just about resolving the preferential right of the father and mother in custody. The vital and transcendental question of the future of the girl is superior to any consideration. The State watches over its citizens. Article 171 of the Civil Code provides that "Courts may deprive parents of parental authority, or suspend the exercise of this, if they treat their children with excessive harshness, or if they give them orders, advice or corrugated examples."
The judgments of foreign courts cannot be effective in the Philippines if they are contrary to laws, customs and public order. If such decisions, by the simple theory of reciprocity, judicial courtesy and international civility are sufficient basis for our courts to decide in accordance with them, then our courts would be in the poor position of having to issue judgments contrary to our laws, customs and public order. This is absurd. "Comity cannot be considered when the future welfare of the child is the vital question in the case. The good of the child is superior to all other considerations. It is the polar star to guide to the conclusion in all cases of infants, whether the question is raised upon a writ of habeas corpus or in a court of chancery."
If the request is granted,
the girl cannot be raised in an appropriate way: if she were to know during her
adolescence that her father has been betrayed by her mother with the man with
whom she lives, that girl would live under an impression of moral inferiority
of incalculable consequences , and for that reason she would never be happy;
and if, under the influence of his mother, she comes to believe that the
infidelity of a wife is just such a transient incident as changing his
headdress, the girl would go down the path of perdition.
NOTE: CASE IS IN SPANISH.
Made use of Google Translate. 😊
I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
[1] The interlocutory
decree is modified so as to the provide that custody of the child shall be
awarded to Plaintiff and Defendant shall have the
right to reasonable visitation. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff for the support of the child $30 each month on the 1st day thereof,
commencing Jan. 1950.
