Rosa Nia Santos vs Republic of the Philippines

written by Howard

G.R. No. 268643 – Remedial Law – Special Proceedings – Guardianship – A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC; Guardianship of Minors

Civil Law – Persons and Family Relations – Family Code – Parental Authority – Guardians

In September 2008, Juliana Rose Oscaris was born. A day after her birth, her mother died. Since her birth, she was taken cared of by her aunt (Rosa Nia Santos) and her grandmother (Rosalinda Danao). Juliana’s father (Julius Oscaris) had abandoned her.

In December 2017, Rosa Nia filed a petition for guardianship over Juliana. Her petition was denied on the ground that she is not a resident of the Philippines as she was residing in London, UK, at the time of the petition. The trial court applied the ruling in Vancil vs Belmes (G.R. No. 132223, 19 June 2001) which declared that courts should not appoint persons as guardians who are not within the jurisdiction of our courts for they will find it difficult to protect the wards. The CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA also noted that Rosalinda, as the present grandmother, is the best guardian for Juliana.

Rosa Nia appealed the denial averring that she is the most qualified to be appointed as guardian; that Rosalinda is already too old; and that Vancil is not applicable in this case because Vancil  involved a petitioner who was unable to return to the Philippines while in her case, though she is in London, UK, she can easily go back to the Philippines.

ISSUE: Whether or not non-resident petitioners in guardianship of minors proceedings are absolutely prohibited from being appointed as guardians.

HELD: No. The facts of this case is different from Vancil.

While A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC cites the “availability to exercise the powers and duties of a guardian for a full period of the guardianship” as a factor in appointing a possible guardian, nowhere in the Rule was this construed to pertain to the guardian’s continuous physical presence or proximity to the ward; to construe it as such would only serve to limit rather than support the Rule’s assurances. The availability to exercise the powers and duties of a guardian must consider the totality of the actions of the guardian to the ward, especially the willingness and the condition and the status of the guardian to be able to exercise those powers and duties for the best interests of the child. The CA was therefore in error when it adjudged Rosa Nia as incompetent based on residence and distance from the ward alone. Instead, it should have considered other factors to measure whether her appointment would be conducive to Juliana’s proper moral development. Thus, what ultimately determines the fitness of a guardian is their ability to see to the physical, educational, social, and moral welfare of the ward, and to give the ward a healthy environment commensurate to their respective resources.

In this case, Rosa Nia was able to prove and demonstrate her qualifications as a guardian to Juliana and that it is in the best interest of Juliana for Rosa Nia to be appointed. Aside from living with her aunt and grandmother in their residence, Juliana’s schooling and her other needs were met by Rosa Nia. When Juliana was 2 years old, Rosa Nia shouldered her behavioral therapy sessions due to symptoms of ADHD. Rosa also shouldered Juliana’s speech therapy until she was 5 years old. When Juliana was ready to go to school, Rosa Nia paid for her tuition fee, tutorial sessions, books, school supplies, uniforms, bus service, and allowance. Aside from these, Rosa even allowed Juliana to take ballet, art, and Kum on classes, all at her expense.

As to Rosa’s residency abroad, the same appears to be only temporary due to her pregnancy. Rosa is married to a British. Despite that, Rosa retained her Philippine citizenship while intentionally maintaining a spousal visa. Instead of applying for residency in the United Kingdom, which she could have easily done, this choice allows Rosa Nia the flexibility to fly back to the Philippines with ease to tend to Juliana’s needs.

Read full text.