Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Vancil vs. Belmes, G.R. No. 132223, June 19, 2001

    Uploaded by

    sq27xr5q9m
    Helen Belmes filed a motion to be appointed guardian of her minor children after the death of their father, arguing that as the natural mother she has custody and parental authority. The trial court originally appointed the children's grandmother as guardian instead. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Family Code, the biological mother holds primary right to act as guardian unless shown to be unfit. As Belmes was alive and exercising parental authority, the grandmother could only assume that role if the mother was deceased, absent or unfit. However, the grandmother acknowledged difficulties in fulfilling guardian duties from abroad. Therefore, the Supreme Court appointed Belmes as sole guardian of the remaining minor child.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Vancil vs. Belmes, G.R. No. 132223, June 19, 2001

    Uploaded by

    sq27xr5q9m
    5 views1 page
    Helen Belmes filed a motion to be appointed guardian of her minor children after the death of their father, arguing that as the natural mother she has custody and parental authority. The trial court originally appointed the children's grandmother as guardian instead. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Family Code, the biological mother holds primary right to act as guardian unless shown to be unfit. As Belmes was alive and exercising parental authority, the grandmother could only assume that role if the mother was deceased, absent or unfit. However, the grandmother acknowledged difficulties in fulfilling guardian duties from abroad. Therefore, the Supreme Court appointed Belmes as sole guardian of the remaining minor child.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Helen Belmes filed a motion to be appointed guardian of her minor children after the death of their father, arguing that as the natural mother she has custody and parental authority. The trial court originally appointed the children's grandmother as guardian instead. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Family Code, the biological mother holds primary right to act as guardian unless shown to be unfit. As Belmes was alive and exercising parental authority, the grandmother could only assume that role if the mother was deceased, absent or unfit. However, the grandmother acknowledged difficulties in fulfilling guardian duties from abroad. Therefore, the Supreme Court appointed Belmes as sole guardian of the remaining minor child.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    5 views1 page

    Vancil vs. Belmes, G.R. No. 132223, June 19, 2001

    Uploaded by

    sq27xr5q9m
    Helen Belmes filed a motion to be appointed guardian of her minor children after the death of their father, arguing that as the natural mother she has custody and parental authority. The trial court originally appointed the children's grandmother as guardian instead. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Family Code, the biological mother holds primary right to act as guardian unless shown to be unfit. As Belmes was alive and exercising parental authority, the grandmother could only assume that role if the mother was deceased, absent or unfit. However, the grandmother acknowledged difficulties in fulfilling guardian duties from abroad. Therefore, the Supreme Court appointed Belmes as sole guardian of the remaining minor child.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    MODULE 10

    I. Parental Authority (Ar8cles 209-233 Family Code)

    Case Title Vancil vs. Belmes, G.R. No. 132223, June 19, 2001
    Ponente SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
    Keywords/Terms Parental Authority
    Provision/Doctrine Art 211 of the Family code The father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental
    authority over the persons of their common children. In case of disagreement, the
    father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary.
    Facts The Regional Trial Court (RTC) designated Bonifacia Vancil, who is an American
    ciXzen, as the legal and judicial guardian for Valerie and Vincent, the children of her
    late son Reeder. Helen Belmes, the biological mother of the minor children, filed a
    moXon seeking the removal of Bonifacia Vancil as guardian and her own
    appointment, arguing that she is the natural mother with custody and parental
    authority over the minors. The trial court denied Belmes' request. However, the
    Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision. When the case reached the
    Supreme Court, Valerie had already a`ained the age of majority, so the Court
    needed to determine whether the mother or the grandmother should be
    appointed as the guardian of minor Vincent.
    Issue Whether Helen Belmes is the sole guardian of the minor Vincent.
    Ruling Belmes, being Vincent's biological mother, holds the primary right to act as his
    guardian. ArXcle 211 of the Family Code specifies: "The father and the mother shall
    jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their common children. In
    case of disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial
    order to the contrary."
    Vancil, as the surviving grandmother, can assume subsXtute parental authority only
    if Belmes is deceased, absent, or deemed unsuitable. Given that Belmes is alive and
    has consistently exercised parental authority over Vincent, Vancil must
    demonstrate Belmes' unsuitability. Even if Belmes is found to be unfit as a guardian
    for Vincent, Vancil sXll cannot qualify as a subsXtute guardian. In her peXXon, Vancil
    herself acknowledged that, as an expatriate, she would face difficulXes in fulfilling
    the responsibiliXes of a guardian. As established in the case of Guerrero vs. Teran,
    the courts should not appoint individuals as guardians if they are not within the
    jurisdicXon of the courts, as they would encounter challenges in protecXng the
    wards.

    You might also like