Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Sole physical custody, as well as parental authority, over the person of minor KANHAIYA KAYA MESINA ABRE[A]U is hereby awarded to ERIC ABRE[A]U with visitation rights granted to the respondent during school vacations pursuant to the terms of the Parenting Plan Agreement of the parties. SO ORDERED . [17] (Emphasis in the original) Unfazed, Ang sought reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Sole physical custody, as well as parental authority, over the person of minor KANHAIYA KAYA MESINA ABRE[A]U is hereby awarded to ERIC ABRE[A]U with visitation rights granted to the respondent during school vacations pursuant to the terms of the Parenting Plan Agreement of the parties. SO ORDERED . [17] (Emphasis in the original) Unfazed, Ang sought reconsideration. [18] Meanwhile, Abreau filed a Motion to immediately execute the RTC Decision. [19] In a February 27, 2024 Omnibus Resolution, [20] the RTC denied Ang's Motion for Reconsideration while finding merit in Abreau's Motion for Immediate Execution, thus directing the issuance of a Writ of Execution. [21] The RTC rendered the Parenting Plan null and void, as it contravened established legal principles. Given that the law grants sole parental custody over the mother to her illegitimate child, the Parenting Plan clearly undermined her custodial rights over Kaya and should therefore be invalidated. [22] Nonetheless, the RTC retained parental custody in favor of Abreau, as Ang was deemed unfit to serve as Kaya's custodian. The RTC expounded that Ang failed to give due regard to her daughter's emotional and physical well-being. Aside from admitting that her partner had indeed touched Kaya's breast under her watch, she even justified his actions by arguing that on that certain occasion, he was only tickling Kaya. [23] On March 7, 2024, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution [24] directing Sheriff IV Dakila Wesley S. Nabua (Sheriff Nabua) to execute its Decision. On March 11, 2024, Ang filed a Motion for Clarification [25] on the terms and conditions of the Writ of Execution, especially with regard to her visitation rights over Kaya. At the same time, she also filed a Supplemental Motion for Issuance of Hold Departure Order [26] on March 14, 2024 to enjoin Abreau from leaving the Philippines during the pendency of the case. On March 18, 2024, Ang filed a Notice of Appeal [27] on the RTC Decision. On March 19, 2024, the RTC issued a Joint Resolution denying Ang's Motion for Clarification and her Supplemental Motion for Issuance of Hold Departure Order. [28] On March 22, 2024, Abreau filed a Motion to declare Ang in contempt, as she refused to receive the Writ of Execution as served by Sheriff Nabua. [29] Insisting that the RTC, through Presiding Judge Zarah R. Sanchez-Fernandez (Judge Sanchez-Fernandez), committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing and implementing the Writ of Execution, Ang filed the present Petition. [30] At the outset, Ang admits that while the principle of judicial hierarchy dictates that the instant Petition should have been filed with the CA, she asks this Court to exercise liberality, given the exigency of her situation, as she risks to lose her child. [31] On the merits, Ang argues that the Parenting Plan should have been declared void ab initio and, thus, cannot serve as the foundation for the exercise