642

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy
*

G.R.No.140817.December7,2001.

SABRINA ARTADI BONDAGJY, petitioner, vs. FOUZI

ALI BONDAGJY, JUDGE BENSAUDI I. ARABANI, SR.,
inhiscapacityaspresidingjudgeofthe3rdShariaDistrict
Court, Sharia Judicial District, Zamboanga City,
respondents.
Appeals; Factual findings of the lower courts are final and
binding upon the parties; Exceptions; Although the Supreme Court
is not a trier of facts, it has the authority to review or reverse the
factual findings of the lower courts if it finds that these do not
conform to the evidence on record.Asarule,factualfindingsofthe
lower courts are final and binding upon the parties. The Court is
not expected or required to examine or contrast the oral and
documentaryevidencesubmittedbytheparties.However,although
this Court is not a trier of facts, it has the authority to review or
reversethefactualfindingsofthelowercourtsifwefindthatthese
do not conform to the evidence on record. In Reyes vs. Court of
Appeals,theCourtheldthattheexceptionstotherulethatfactual
findings of the trial court are final and conclusive and may not be
reviewedonappealarethefollowing:(1)whentheinferencemade
is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a
graveabuseofdiscretion;(3)whenthefindingisgroundedentirely
on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of
theCourtofAppealsisbasedonmisapprehensionoffacts;(5)when
thefindingsoffactareconflicting;(6)whentheCourtofAppeals,in
making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the
same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7)whenthefindingsoftheCourtofAppealsarecontrarytothose
of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9)
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
factsnotdisputedbythepartiesandwhich,ifproperlyconsidered,
would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings of
factoftheCourtofAppealsarepremisedontheabsenceofevidence
andarecontradictedbytheevidenceonrecord.
Parent and Child; Custody; Family Code; Code of Muslim
Personal Laws (P.D. 1083); The standard in the determination of
sufficiency of proof to establish the unfitness of a mother who had
converted to Muslim before marriage but has converted back to
Catholicism in relation to custody of her children is not restricted to
Muslim Lawsthe Family Code shall also
_______________
* FIRSTDIVISION.

643

VOL.371,DECEMBER7,2001

643

Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy

be taken into consideration in deciding whether she is
incompetent.The burden is upon respondent to prove that
petitioner is not worthy to have custody of her children. We find
thattheevidencepresentedbytherespondentwasnotsufficientto
establishherunfitnessaccordingtoMuslimlawortheFamilyCode.
InPilipinas Shell Corp. vs. Court of Appeals (April 20, 2001, G.R.
No. 114923, 357 SCRA 30), we said that in the hierarchy of
evidentiaryvalues,proofbeyondreasonabledoubtisatthehighest
level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of
evidence and substantial evidence, in that order. The standard in
the determination of sufficiency of proof, however, is not restricted
to Muslim laws. The Family Code shall be taken into consideration
in deciding whether a nonMuslim woman is incompetent. What
determines her capacity is the standard laid down by the Family
CodenowthatsheisnotaMuslim.
Same; Same; Same; What determines the fitness of any parent is
the ability to see to the physical, educational, social and moral
welfare of the children.Indeed,whatdeterminesthefitnessofany
parent is the ability to see to the physical, educational, social and
moralwelfareofthechildren,andtheabilitytogivethemahealthy
environment as well as physical and financial support taking into
consideration the respective resources and social and moral
situationsoftheparents.
Same; Same; Same; In ascertaining the welfare and best
interest of the children, courts are mandated by the Family Code to
take into account all relevant considerations.The welfare of the
minorsisthecontrollingconsiderationontheissue.Inascertaining
the welfare and best interest of the children, courts are mandated
bytheFamilyCodetotakeintoaccountallrelevantconsiderations.
Same; Same; Same; In cases where both parties cannot have
custody because of their voluntary separation, the Court takes into
consideration the circumstances that would lead it to believe which
parent can better take care of the children.We do not doubt the
capacity and love of both parties for their children, such that they
both want to have them in their custody. Either parent may lose
parental authority over the child only for a valid reason. In cases
wherebothpartiescannothavecustodybecauseoftheirvoluntary
separation,wetakeintoconsiderationthecircumstancesthatwould
leadustobelievewhichparentcanbettertakecareofthechildren.
Although we see the need for the children to have both a mother
andafather,webelievethatpetitionerhasmorecapacityandtime
to see to the childrens needs. Respondent is a businessman whose
workrequiresthathegoabroadorbeindifferentplacesmostofthe
time.UnderP.D.No.
644

644

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy

603, the custody of the minor children, absent a compelling reason

tothecontrary,isgiventothemother.
Same; Same; Same; The award of custody to the wife does not
deprive the husband of parental authority.The award of custody
to the wife does not deprive the husband of parental authority. In
the case of Silva v. Court of Appeals, we said that: Parents have
the natural right, as well as the moral and legal duty, to care for
their children, see to their upbringing and safeguard their best
interest and welfare. This authority and responsibility may not be
unduly denied the parents; neither may it be renounced by them.
Even when the parents are estranged and their affection for each
other is lost, the attachment and feeling for their offsprings
invariablyremainunchanged.Neitherthelawnorthecourtsallow
this affinity to suffer absent, of course, any real, grave and
imminent threat to the wellbeing of the child. Thus, we grant
visitorial rights to respondent as his Constitutionally protected
naturalandprimaryright.

PETITIONforreviewofadecisionoftheShariaDistrict
CourtofZamboangaCity.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Castillo, Laman, Tan, Pantaleon & San Jose for
petitioner.
Sadain & Sadain Law Offices and Marquinez
Pabalate & Associatesforprivaterespondent.
Alentajan Law Office collaborating counsel for
respondent.
PARDO,J.:
Is a wife, a Christian who converted to Islam before her
marriage to a Muslim and converted back to Catholicism
upontheirseparation,stillboundbythemorallawsofIslam
inthedeterminationofherfitnesstobethecustodianofher
children?
Weapplycivillawinthebestinterestofthechildren.
The Facts
RespondentFouzi(then31yearsofage)andSabrina(then
20yearsofage)weremarriedonFebruary3,1988,atthe
Manila
645

VOL.371,DECEMBER7,2001

645

Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy

1

Hotel,Ermita,ManilaunderIslamicrites. OnOctober21,
1987, or four (4) months before her marriage, Sabrina
became a Muslim by conversion. However, the conversion
wasnotregisteredwiththeCodeofMuslimPersonalLaws
ofthePhilippines.

Out of their union, they begot two

(2) children, namely,
2
Abdulaziz, born on June
13, 1989, and Amouaje, born on
3
September 29, 1990. The children were born in Jeddah,
SaudiArabia.
At the time of their marriage, unknown to petitioner,
respondent was still married to a Saudi Arabian woman
whomhelaterdivorced.
After their marriage, the couple moved in with
respondents family in Makati City. In 1990, the parties
migrated and settled in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia where they
livedformorethantwoyears.
Sometime in December 1995, the children lived in the
house of Sabrinas mother in 145 Tanguile Street, Ayala
Alabang. Fouzi alleged that he could not see his children
until he got an order from the court. Even with a court
order, he could only see his children in school at De La
SalleZobel,Alabang,MuntinlupaCity.
On December 15, 41996, Sabrina had the children
baptized as Christians and their names changed from
Abdulaziz Bondagjy to Azziz Santiago Artadi and from
AmouajeBondagjytoAmouageSelinaArtadi.
Respondent alleged that on various occasions Sabrina
5
was seen with different men at odd hours in Manila, and
that she would
wear short skirts, sleeveless blouses, and
6
bathingsuits. Such clothing are detestable under Islamic
lawoncustoms.
FouziclaimedthatSabrinalettheirchildrensweeptheir
neighborshouseforafeeofP40.00afterthechildrencome
homefrom
_______________
1MarriageContract,Records,p.484.
2ForeignServiceofthePhilippines,ReportofBirth,Records,p.490.
3Ibid.,Records,p.491.
4BaptismalCertificatesissuedbySt.JamestheGreatParish,Ayala

AlabangVillage,Muntinlupa,M.M.,pp.303304.
5ExhibitT,AffidavitofMr.CarlosA.Batalla,Records,p.507508.
6ExhibitsEL,PicturesofPetitioner,Records,492499.

646

646

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy
7

school. Whenever Fouzi sees them in school, the children

wouldbehappytoseehimbuttheywereafraidtorideinhis
car. Instead, they would ride the jeepney in going home
fromschool.
The Case
On March 11, 1996, respondent Fouzi Ali Bondagjy filed
8
withtheShariaDistrictCourt,MarawiCity,anaction to
obtaincustodyofhistwominorchildren,Abdulaziz,10and
Amouaje,9.
OnJune6,1996,petitionerfiledheranswerwithmotion
to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the

persons of the parties since both parties were residents of

Manila and for lack of cause of action. Petitioner likewise
movedtotransferthevenuetoZamboanga,whichwasmore
accessiblebyplane.
On June 18, 1996, the Sharia District Court granted
9
petitionersmotiontotransferthevenuetoZamboanga.
10
OnJune27,1996,respondentfiledareply andmotion
11
for a temporary restraining order against petitioner. He
moved that petitioner desist from preventing him from
exercisingparentalauthorityoverhisminorchildren.
On July 12, 1996, the court granted
the motion and
12
issuedawritofpreliminaryinjunction.
On August 12, 1996, the court ordered the parties to
submittheirmemorandaontheissueofjurisdiction.
On October 30, 1996, the court granted petitioners
motion to withdraw motion to dismiss on the issue of
jurisdictionandsettheproceedingsforpretrialconference
onNovember14,1996.
OnNovember14,1996,respondentfiledamotiontodrop
Joyce Artadi as defendant in the case and the trial court
issuedanorder:
_______________
7Fouziwouldsometimesoffertotakethemhomeinhiscar.
8Spec.Proc.No.1396.
9Records,p.43.
10Records,4750.
11Records,pp.4546.
12Records,pp.5152.

647

VOL.371,DECEMBER7,2001

647

Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy

Duringthepretrialconferenceheldthismorning,thepartiesmade
theirrespectiveofferandcounterproposalsforamicablesettlement.
Theplaintiffproposed(1)solidarityofthefamily,and(2)alternate
custody. The defendant advanced the proposal of reasonable
visitation of the father at their residence, for which the court will
possiblyfixtheperiodortimeandscheduleofvisitations.
With these proposals, both parties agreed to continue the pre
trialconferenceonDecember9,1996.
WHEREFORE, let the pretrial conference be again held on
13
December9,1996,at9:00oclockinthemorning.

Meantime, petitioner filed with14the Regional Trial Court,

Branch 256, Muntinlupa City an action for nullity of
marriage, custody and support, ordered the parties15 to
maintainstatus quountilfurtherordersfromsaidcourt.
On March
2, 1999, petitioner filed another motion to
16
dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subjectmatterofthecasesinceP.D.No.1083isapplicable
only to Muslims. On March 3, 1999, Fouzi filed an
oppositiontothemotiontodismissandarguedthatatthe
inception of the case, both parties were Muslims, Fouzi by
birthandSabrinabyconversion.

On March 29, 1999, the court denied the motion to

dismisssinceP.D.No.1083hadjurisdictionoverallcasesof
17
Muslimsinvolvingcustody.
On April 23, 1999, Sabrina filed a motion to reconsider
18
theorderofMarch29,1999denyingthemotiontodismiss.
OnJune22,1999,thecourtdeniedpetitionersmotionfor
reconsideration.Thus
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing reasons, the motion for
reconsideration of the defendantmovant is hereby ordered
DENIED;Defen
_______________
13Records,p.140.
14EntitledSabrina

ArtadiBondagjy vs. Fouzi Ali Bondagjy,Civil Case No.

98070.
15DatedMay8,1998,Records,p.309.
16Records,pp.338362.
17Records,pp.370371.
18Records,pp.387393.

648

648

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy

dantisfurtherorderedtocomplywiththeorderofthisCourtdated
July 12, 1996, to allow plaintiff to exercise his right of parental
authority over their minor children with that of the defendant in
accordance with article 71 of P.D. 1083, the Code of Muslim
PersonalLaws.
LetthecontinuationofthiscasebesetonJuly15,1999at8:30
19
inthemorning.

OnJuly15,1999,thetrialcourtdecidedtomoveforwardto
thenextstageofthecaseandallowedrespondentFouzito
presentevidenceex parte.
20
On August 18, 1999, the court issued an order giving
respondent fifteen (15) days to submit his formal offer of
evidence and fifteen (15) days from receipt of transcript of
stenographicnotestosubmitmemorandum.
The Sharia District Courts Decision
On November 16, 1999, the Sharia Court rendered a
decision,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,foregoingconsidered,judgmentisherebyrendered:
(a) Awarding the custody of the minors Abdulaziz Artadi
Bondagjy and Amouaje Artadi Bondagjy in favor of their
natural father, petitioner Fouzi Ali Bondagjy; and for this
purpose ordering the respondent Sabrina Artadi Bondagjy
oranypersonhavingthecareofsaidminorsinhersteador
behalf,toturnover,relinguishandsurrenderthecustodyof
said minors to their natural father, the petitioner in this
caseFouziAliBondagjy;
(b) Ordering the petitioner Fouzi Ali Bondagjy to ensure that

the said minors are provided with reasonable support

accordingtohismeansandinkeepingwiththestandardof
hisfamily,and,asuitablehomeconducivetotheirphysical;
(c) mental and moral development; and, with his knowledge
and under reasonable circumstances allow the respondent
andnaturalmotherofthesaidminorsMrs.SabrinaArtadi
Bondagjytovisit
_______________
19Records,pp.409411.
20Recordsp.446.

649

VOL.371,DECEMBER7,2001

649

Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy

her minor children Abdulaziz Artadi Bondagjy and Amouje
21
ArtadiBondagjy.
22

Hence,thispetition.

The Courts Ruling

The Sharia District Court held that P.D. No. 1083 on
Custody and Guardianship does not apply to this case
becausethespouseswerenotyetdivorced.
However, the Sharia District Court found petitioner
unworthytocareforherchildren.Thus
Amarriedwoman,andamothertogrowingchildren,shouldlivea
life that the community in which she lives considers morally
upright,andinamannerthathergrowingminorchildrenwillnot
besociallyandmorallyaffectedandprejudiced.Itissadtonotethat
respondenthasfailedtoobservethatwhichisexpectedofamarried
woman and a mother by the society in which she lives. x x x The
evidenceofthiscaseshowstheextentofthemoraldepravityofthe
respondent, and the kind of concern for the welfare of her minor
children which on the basis thereof this Court finds respondent
unfitwiththecustodyofherminorchildren.
x x x Under the general principles of Muslim law, the Muslim
mother may be legally disentitled to the custody of her minor
children by reason of wickedness when such wickedness is
injurious to the mind of the child, such as when she engages in
zina(illicitsexualrelation);orwhensheisunworthyasamother;
and, a woman is not worthy to be trusted with the custody of the
childwhoiscontinuallygoingoutandleavingthechildhungry.(A.
23
Baillie,MuhammadanLaw,p.435;citingDarulMuktar,p.280).

Ontheotherhand,theShariaCourtfoundthatrespondent
Fouzi was capable both personally and financially
to look
24
afterthebestinterestofhisminorchildren.
_______________
21Rollo,pp.3661.
22 Filed on January 7, 2000. On April 5, 2000, we gave due couse to

thepetition(Rollo,pp.220221).

23Rollo,p.59.
24Rollo,p.60.

650

650

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy

When he was asked during the direct examination the question

that, if ever this Honorable Court will grant you custody of your
children will you be able to house and give support to your
children? He answered, Of course, even up to now I am giving
supporttomychildren;Andmycommentisthatthefathershould
give everything the needs of the family and now whatever the
children needs even in school, considering the past, I have to love
them, I have to care for my children.Inschool,evenwhentheysee
somethingtheyloveandlike,Ibuyitforthem.Orsometime(sic)I
send my staff and bring something for them in their house. It is
very hard, in school in front of other parents my son would still
climbonmyshoulder.Iwanttoseethemhappy.Ihavepicturesof
25
mychildrenwithme,takenonlylastweek.

Asarule,factualfindingsofthelowercourtsarefinaland
26
binding upon the parties. The Court is not expected or
required to examine or contrast the
oral and documentary
27
evidencesubmittedbytheparties. However,althoughthis
Courtisnotatrieroffacts,ithastheauthoritytoreviewor
reverse the factual findings of the lower courts if28we find
thatthesedonotconformtotheevidenceonrecord.
29
InReyes vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the
exceptionstotherulethatfactualfindingsofthetrialcourt
arefinalandconclusiveandmaynotbereviewedonappeal
arethefollowing:(1)whentheinferencemadeismanifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a grave
abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded
entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when
the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its
findings,
_______________
25Ibid.
26Cang

v. Court of Appeals,367Phil129;296SCRA128(1998),citing

Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals,322Phil.463,471;252SCRA432(1996).

27Cang

v. Court of Appeals,supra.; Imperial v. Court of Appeals, 328

Phil.366;259SCRA65(1996).
28 Philippine

National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 735, 739

(1990) citing Ongsiako v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 152 SCRA 627

(1987).
29328Phil.171;258SCRA651(1996).

651

VOL.371,DECEMBER7,2001
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy

651

wentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseandthesameiscontrary
to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when
thefindingsoftheCourtofAppealsarecontrarytothoseof
thetrialcourt;(8)whenthefindingsoffactareconclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based;(9)whentheCourtofAppealsmanifestlyoverlooked
certainrelevantfactsnotdisputedbythepartiesandwhich,
if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
are premised on the absence of evidence and are
contradictedbytheevidenceonrecord.
Fitness as a Mother
The burden is upon respondent to prove that petitioner is
notworthytohavecustodyofherchildren.Wefindthatthe
evidencepresentedbytherespondentwasnotsufficientto
establish her unfitness according to Muslim law or the
FamilyCode.
In Pilipinas Shell Corp. vs. Court of Appeals (April 20,
2001,G.R.No.114923,357SCRA30), we said that in the
hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable
doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear and
convincing evidence, preponderance
of evidence and
30
substantialevidence,inthatorder.
Thestandardinthedeterminationofsufficiencyofproof,
however,isnotrestrictedtoMuslimlaws.TheFamilyCode
shallbetakenintoconsiderationindecidingwhetheranon
Muslim woman is incompetent. What determines her
capacityisthestandardlaiddownbytheFamilyCodenow
thatsheisnotaMuslim.
Indeed,whatdeterminesthefitnessofanyparentisthe
abilitytoseetothephysical,educational,socialandmoral
31
welfare of the children, and the ability to give them a
healthy environment as well as physical and financial
support taking into consideration the respective resources
andsocialandmoralsituationsoftheparents.
The record shows that petitioner is equally financially
capable of providing for all the needs of her children. The
childrenwentto
_______________
30CitingManalo
31Unson

v. RoldanConfesor,215SCRA808(1992).

III v. Navarro,101SCRA182(1980).
652

652

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy

school at De La Salle Zobel School, Muntinlupa City with

their tuition32 paid by petitioner according to the schools
certification.
Parental Authority and Custody

Thewelfareoftheminorsisthecontrollingconsiderationon
33
theissue.
In ascertaining the welfare and best interest of the
children, courts are mandated by the Family
Code to take
34
intoaccountallrelevantconsiderations.
Article 211 of the Family Code provides that the father
and mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over
thepersonsoftheircommonchildren.
Similarly,P.D.No.1083isclearthatwheretheparents
arenotdivorcedorlegallyseparated,thefatherandmother
shalljointly exercise just and reasonable parental authority
andfulfilltheirresponsibilityovertheirlegitimatechildren.
35
InSagalaEslao v. Court of Appeals, westated:
xxx[Parentalauthority]isamassofrightsandobligationswhich
thelawgrantstoparentsforthepurposeofthechildrensphysical
preservation and development, as well as the cultivation of their
36
intellect and the education of their heart and senses. As regards
parental authority, there is no power, but a task; no complex of
rights,butasumofduties;nosovereigntybutasacredtrustforthe
37
welfareoftheminor.
xxx
_______________
32Rollo,pp.301302.
33Perkins
34Espiritu

v. Perkins,57Phil.217(1932).
v. Court of Appeals,312Phil.431;242SCRA362(1995).

35 334 Phil. 286; 266 SCRA 317 (1997), citing Santos,

Sr. v. Court of

Appeals,312Phil482;242SCRA407(1995).
36 Reyes v. Alvarez, 8 Phil. 732; (1907); 2 Manresa 21; cited in I A.

Tolentino, Civil Code of the Phils., Commentaries and Jurisprudence

604(1990ed.).
37 Puig Pena cited in Reyes and Puno, An Outline of the Philippine

CivilLaw,295(4thed.,1964).
653

VOL.371,DECEMBER7,2001

653

Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy

The father and mother, being the natural guardians of
unemancipated children, are dutybound and entitled to keep them
38
intheircustodyandcompany.

We do not doubt the capacity and love of both parties for

their children, such that they both want to have them in
theircustody.
Eitherparentmayloseparentalauthorityoverthechild
onlyforavalidreason.Incaseswherebothpartiescannot
havecustodybecauseoftheirvoluntaryseparation,wetake
into consideration the circumstances that would lead us to
believe which parent can better take care of the children.
Although we see the need for the children to have both a
mother and a father, we believe that petitioner has more
capacityandtimetoseetothechildrensneeds.Respondent
isabusinessmanwhoseworkrequiresthathegoabroador
beindifferentplacesmostofthetime.UnderP.D.No.603,
the custody of the minor children, absent a compelling

39

reasontothecontrary,isgiventothemother.
However, the award of custody to the wife does not
deprive the husband of 40
parental authority. In the case of
Silva v. Court of Appeals, wesaidthat:
Parents have the natural right, as well as the moral and legal
duty, to care for their children, see to their upbringing and
safeguard their best interest and welfare. This authority and
responsibilitymaynotbeundulydeniedtheparents;neithermayit
be renounced by them. Even when the parents are estranged and
theiraffectionforeachotherislost,theattachmentandfeelingfor
theiroffspringsinvariablyremainunchanged.Neitherthelawnor
the courts allow this affinity to suffer absent, of course, any real,
graveandimminentthreattothewellbeingofthechild.

Thus, we grant visitorial rights to respondent as

his
41
Constitutionallyprotectednaturalandprimaryright.
_______________
38FamilyCode,Arts.209and211.
39Hontiveros

v. IAC,217Phil714;132SCRA745(1984).

40Supra.
41Art.II,Sec.12,Constitution.

654

654

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy

The Fallo
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
decision in Spl. Proc. No. 1396 is hereby SET ASIDE.
Petitioner SABRINA ARTADI BONDAGJY shall have
custody over minors Abdulaziz, and Amouaje Bondagjy,
until the children reach majority age. Both spouses shall
have joint responsibility over all expenses of rearing the
children.
The father, FOUZI ALI BONDAGJY, shall have
visitorial rights at least once a week and may take the
childrenoutonlywiththewrittenconsentofthemother.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and
YnaresSantiago, JJ.,concur.
Petition granted, judgment set aside. Custody over the
minor children awarded to petitioner.
Notes.While it is true that the determination of the
right to the custody of minor children is relevant in cases
where the parents, who are married to each other, are for
some reason separated from each other, it does not follow
thatitcannotariseinanyothersituation.(David vs. Court
of Appeals,250SCRA82[1995])
Anactionforcompulsoryrecognitionandenforcementof

successionalrightswhichwasfiledpriortotheadventofthe
Family Code must be governed by Article 285 of the Civil
Code and not by Article 175, paragraph 2 of the Family
Code. (Aruego, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 711
[1996])
The jurisdiction of a court, whether in criminal or civil
cases, once attached, cannot be ousted by subsequent
happeningsorevents,althoughofacharacterwhichwould
have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first
instance, and the Court retains jurisdiction until it finally
disposes of the case. (Aruego, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 254
SCRA711[1996])
o0o
655

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.