Unson vs. Navarro (Miguel R. Unson III, petitioner vs. Hon Pedro C. Navarro and Edita N.

Araneta,
respondents)

GR No. L-52242 (101 SCRA 183)

November 17, 1980

Facts:

Petitioner and private respondent were married on April 19, 1971 and out of that marriage the child in
question, Teresa, was born on December 1, 1971. However, on July 13, 1974, they executed an
agreement for the separation of their properties and to live separately, as they have in fact been living
separately since June 1972. Said agreement was approved by the Court.

The parties have agreed that no specific provision was contained in said agreement about the custody of
the child because the husband and wife would have their own private arrangement in that respect.

In the early part of 1978, the petitioner found out the following information regarding his wife: (1) she
was in a relation with her brother-in-law and godfather of their child (a former seminarian at that),
Maria Teresa; (2) that the brother-in-law was being treated for manic depressive disorder; (3) the illicit
affair produced 2 children; and (4) that Edita and her brother-in-law embraced a Protestant faith.

On 28 December 1979, the respondent judge ordered the petitioner to produce the child, Maria Teresa
Unson and return her to the custody of the mother, herein private respondent, further obliging him to
“continue his support of said daughter by providing for her education and medical needs”.

Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner has the right over the custody of the child, Maria Teresa Unson

Ruling:

Yes Petioner has the right over the custody of the child since Edita cannot invoke the Tender Age
doctrine under Article 363 of the civil code which provides that no child shall be separated from their
mother at the age of seven unless the court finds compelling reasons. However the situation of
her mother is immorally wrong that edita has an illicit affair to her brother in law and God Father
of Maria Teresa,
The Court also said that in all controversies regarding the custody of a child, the sole consideration is the
physical, education, social and moral welfare taking into account the respective resources and social and
moral situations of the contending parents.
With the premise in view, the Court found that it is in the best interest of the child Teresa to be from
unhealthy, situation in which private respondent had placed herself, as admitted by her, might create in
the moral and social outlook of Teresa who was in her formative and most impressionable stage in her
life.

The court remanded back the case to the lower court.