Article 217 - Family Code and Case: Dempsey Vs. RTC Branch LXXV, Olongapo City, G.R. No. 77737-38

 Article 217

          In case of foundlings, abandoned, neglected or abused children and other children similarly situated, parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial proceedings to heads of children’s homes, orphanages and similar institutions duly accredited by the proper government agency.

          A foundling is an abandoned child, whose parents are unknown. A child left at the door of a private home or charitable institution by its mother in order to hide her shame because of extreme poverty so that the child may be reared as an act of charity, is a foundling. (Capistrano, Civil Code of the Phils., 1950 ed., p. 297).

          An abandoned child is one who has no parental care or guardianship or whose parents or guardians have deserted him for atleast six (6) months. (Dempsey vs. Regional Trial Court, 164 SCRA 384).


CHRISTINA MARIE DEMPSEY, a minor and represented by her mother, Janalita Rapada, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH LXXV, Third Judicial Region, Olongapo City, and JOEL DEMPSEY, respondents.

G.R. Nos. 77737-38 August 15, 1988

Facts:

          On October 1, 1984, Christina Marie Dempsey was born out of wedlock by herein petitioner, Janalita Rapada, and respondent, Joel Dempsey. At the present, Christina is receiving 150$ as a form of monthly support through her mother Janalita. Aside from the said support, respondent promised to declare Christina as his dependent and to declare the child after his citinzenship. This would provide certain privilages for the child. This promise was not enforced even after Janalita made efforts.

          Janalita filed a complaint in the Municipal Trial Court. After trial, the trial ruled in favor of the petitioner and imposed a sanction of imprisonment with fines and civil damages.

          Respondent appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court. The RTC reversed the trial court decision and ruled that, Parental authority to which certain parental obligations are attached pertains only to legitimate and adopted children unlike petitioner who is an acknowledged illegitimate minor child of private respondent; that in cases of abandonment of minors, the proper forum is the Department of Social Welfare where the person to whom the minor has been left must report immediately (Art. 161, P.D. 603).

Issue:

          Whether the trial court erred in reversing the decision of the trial court and ruling that the said case should be transferred to the DSSD.

Held:

          Yes. The respondent court would shift jurisdiction over the case from the municipal trial court to the Department of Social Services and Development. It is readily apparent that the DSSD cannot take cognizance of and enforce the criminal sanctions of P.D. 603. Besides, Christina Marie Dempsey is not an abandoned child in the strict sense of the word as she is still in the custody and care of her mother. Art. 141 of P.D. 603 defines an abandoned child as follows: "... Am abandoned child is one who has no parental care or guardianship or whose parents or guardians have deserted him for a period of at least six continuous months." Article 161 cannot, therefore, be applied to the case at bar. Thus, it is not the Department of Social Services and Development which has jurisdiction but the Municipal Trial Court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 91 - Family Code and Case: Nobleza Vs. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038

Article 91           Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.           The law provides for two kinds of properties that shall form part of the absolute community of properties; namely, (1) All properties owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage;           (2) All properties acquired after the celebration of the marriage.           The law provides, however, that even if the parties are governed by the absolute community, they may agree that some properties be exempted form its coverage. If that is so, then, the ante-nuptial agreement embodied in their law further provides that there are proper...
Read more

Article 20 Case Digest: Sps. Quisumbing Vs. Meralco

SPOUSES ANTONIO AND LORNA QUISUMBING, PETITIONER VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), RESPONDENT G.R. NO. 142943, APRIL 3, 2002 FACTS:     On March 3, 1995, the respondents took a routine check of all single phased meters in Green Meadows avenue. The house owned by the petitioners was one of the houses that was inspected. The petitioners was not around at the of the inspection, the petitioners asked permission from the petitioners through their secretary. The secretary witnessed the inspection. Upon inspection, the respondents discovered that the terminal seal of the meter was missing, the meter cover seal was deformed, the meter dials of the meter was mis-aligned and there were scratches on the meter base plate. This was a clear sign that the meter has been tampered. The petitioners denied liability for the tampering. The respondent then, temporarily disconnected the electric services of the petitioners until they pay the amount of P178,875.01 representing the differential ...
Read more

Article 39, Case Digest - Family Code: Wiegel vs. Judge Sempio-Diy

  LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY (as presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and KARL HEINZ WIEGEL, respondents. G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986 PARAS, J.: Facts:           This a petition for certiorari for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the petitioner, Lilia Wiegel and respondent, Karl Heinz Wiegel, by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City.           Herein respondent claims that his marriage to the petitioner is void because of an existing marriage prior to their marriage. The petitioner contends that her first marriage was void because they forced to enter in the said marriage. Moreover, the petitioner assails that her first husband had a prior existing marriage, therefore, making the marriage void.           Respondent jud...
Read more