The Supreme Court (SC) has reaffirmed that in custody disputes, the child's best interests must come first, even if the parents have a written custody agreement.
ALSO READ: SC Rules Teacher's Suspension For Premarital Pregnancy Illegal
Courts Must Do More Than Sign Off on Parent Deals, Says SC
The ruling came from a petition for habeas corpus in a case involving a separated couple who share a minor child. After the separation, the child lived with the mother, while the father maintained visitation during school breaks.
In 2020, the child's visit with the father was extended due to COVID-19 lockdowns. However, even after restrictions were lifted, the father did not return the child. The child also expressed a preference to stay with the father. The parents later signed a barangay settlement agreement, stating the child would be returned to the mother after the school year, but this was not followed.
The mother then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the Family Court, seeking to regain custody. The court issued the writ, and during a closed-door conference, both parties agreed that custody would return to the mother by July 2021. The Family Court adopted this agreement in an order and terminated the case.
However, the father and his family argued that this was improper. They said the court should have conducted a full trial on the merits to determine the child's best interests, rather than relying solely on the parents' agreement. They elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, and later to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court granted their petition and emphasized that trial courts must independently assess all relevant circumstances in child custody proceedings. These include:
-
Whether the petitioner has a legal right to custody
-
Whether the other party is unlawfully withholding the child
-
Whether staying with the petitioner is in the child's best interest
The Court further clarified that compromise agreements between parents on custody, while allowed, are not binding if they are not aligned with the child's welfare. Courts cannot simply approve such agreements without conducting a case study, assessing parental fitness, and ensuring that the child's rights are protected.
Quoting the decision, the Court said:
"[A child's rights] are not and should not be dependent solely on the wishes, much less the whims and caprices, of [their] parents. [Their] welfare should not be subject to the parents' say-so or mutual agreement alone. Where, as in this case, the parents are already separated in fact, the courts must step in to determine in whose custody the child can better be assured the rights granted to [them] by law."
While the case is still ongoing, the Court granted temporary custody to the petitioners, who currently care for the child.
Want to learn more about child custody laws in the Philippines? Click here for details.
More from sp
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod
