BAGUIO CITY, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) Second Division has affirmed a lower court’s decision to award sole physical custody of a nonmarital child to her father, ruling that the child’s safety and “best interest” outweigh the mother’s traditional legal preference under the Family Code.
In a Decision promulgated on April 21, 2025, and penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the Court underscored that while the law generally grants mothers parental authority over nonmarital children, this right is not absolute and may be stripped if the mother is proven unfit to provide a safe and moral environment.
Discord and Allegations of Abuse
The case involved Vidya Dasi Mesina Ang and Eric Abreau, the parents of Kanhaiya Kaya Mesina Abreau, born in 2014. Although the parents never married, they lived together in the United States for a period and executed a “Parenting Plan” in California that granted Abreau sole physical custody. The conflict escalated when the child, Kaya, revealed to her paternal grandmother and school teachers that her mother’s live-in partner in the Philippines had touched her inappropriately.
Fearing for the child’s safety, Abreau refused to return Kaya to Ang after a vacation. In response, Ang took the child back to the Philippines without notice, prompting Abreau to file for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City eventually ruled in favor of the father, citing the mother’s failure to protect her daughter from potential sexual abuse.
Best Interest as the “Least Detrimental Alternative”
The Supreme Court addressed the mother’s argument that, as the parent of a nonmarital child, she has an automatic and sole right to custody under Article 176 of the Family Code. While the Court acknowledged this general rule, it emphasized that the “supreme consideration” in all custody cases is the best interest of the child.
The Court defined the “best interest of the child” not merely as the most ideal situation, but as the “least detrimental available alternative” for safeguarding the minor’s growth. In this case, the SC found the mother unfit because she had brushed aside her daughter’s cries for help, characterizing the partner’s alleged molestation as a mere “tickling game.” The Court held that no respectable mother concerned with the moral well-being of her child would react with such inaction to a revelation of sexual abuse.
Technicalities and Foreign Judgments
The ruling also touched upon the “Parenting Plan” executed in California. The SC noted that the plan could not be legally recognized or enforced as a foreign judgment in the Philippines because the parties failed to authenticate it according to the Rules of Evidence. However, the Court chose to resolve the custody issue independently under Philippine law, asserting the State’s role as parens patriae (guardian of the people).
Furthermore, the Court relaxed the “hierarchy of courts” principle, which usually requires litigants to seek relief from the Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court. Given the “delicate nature” of a child’s welfare and the potential for irreparable harm, the SC deemed it necessary to abandon mechanical technicalities in favor of substantial justice.
Stability and Safety
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the father was in a better position to provide a stable, safe, and conducive environment. Abreau, a resident and citizen of the USA, was noted for his financial stability and his consistent efforts to provide for Kaya’s education and well-being since her birth.
While the Court awarded sole physical custody to the father, it maintained that the mother retains visitation rights during school vacations. The SC emphasized that custody orders are never truly final and remain subject to continuing assessment to ensure the child’s ongoing safety and development.
