G.R. no. 168785 February 05, 2010 Herald Black Dacasin, peiioner !s. "#aron Del $undo Dacasin , responden
F%&'"( On April 1994, petitioner and respondent got married here in the Philippines. The following year, respondent got pregnant and gave birth to a baby girl whom whom they they named named Step Stepha hani nie. e. In !ne !ne of 19 1999 99rrespo espond nden entt so!g so!ght ht and obtained from the Illinois "o!rt a divor#e de#ree against petitioner. In its r!li r!ling ng,, the the Illi Illino nois is #o!r #o!rtt diss dissol olve ved d the the mar marriag riage e and and awar awarde ded d to the the respondent sole #!stody of Stephanie and retained $!risdi#tion over the #ase for for enfo enforr#eme #ement nt p!rp p!rpos oses es.. On %& %&th th of an! an!ar ary y %' %''% '%,, peti petiti tion oner er and and respondent e(e#!ted in )anila a #ontra#t *Agreement+ for the $oint #!stody of Stephanie. Stephanie. Two years years after, after, petitione petitionerr s!ed responde respondent nt in the egional egional Trial"o!rt Trial"o!rt of )a-ati "ity. "ity. Petitioner Petitioner #laimed that respondent e(er#ised e(er#ised sole #!stody over Stephanie. espondent so!ght the dismissal of the #omplaint d!e to la#- of $!risdi#tion, sin#e Illinois "o!rt hold the $!risdi#tion in enfor#ing the divor#e de#ree.
)""*+ The !estion is whether the trial #o!rt has $!risdi#tion to ta-e #ogni/ #ogni/an# an#e e of petit petition ioner er0s 0s s!it s!it and enfor enfor#e #e the Agreem Agreement ent on the $oint $oint #!stody of the parties0 #hild.
R*)-G The trial #o!rt has $!risdi#tion to entertain petitioner0s s!it b!t not to enfo enforr#e the the Ag Agrreeme eement nt whi# whi#h h
is void void..
owe oweve ver, r, fa#t fa#t!a !all and and e!i e!ity ty
#onsiderations militate against the dismissal of petitioner0s s!it and #all for the remand of the #ase to settle the !estion of Stephanie0s #!stody. #!stody. S!b$e#t matter $!risdi#tion is #onferred by law. law. At the time petitioner 2led his s!it in the trial #o!rt, stat!tory law vests on egional Trial "o!rts e(#l!sive original $!risdi#tion over #ivil a#tions in#apable of pe#!niary estimation . An a#tion for spe#i2# performan#e, s!#h as petitioner0s s!it to enfor#e the Agreement Agreement on $oint #hild #!stody, belongs to this spe#ies s pe#ies of a#tions. Th!s, $!risdi#tion3wise, petitioner petitioner went to the right #o!rt. #o!rt. Stephanie is now nearly 1 years old, th!s removing the #ase o!tside of the ambit of the mandatory maternal #!stody regime !nder Arti#le %15 and bringing it within #overage of the defa!lt standard on #hild #!stody pro#eedings pro#eedings 6 the best interest of the #hild . As the !estion of #!stody is already before the trial #o!rt and the #hild0s parents, pa rents, by e(e#!ting e(e#!ting the Agreement, Agreement, initially showed in#lination to share #!stody, it is in the interest of swift and e7#ient e7#ient rendition of $!sti#e to allow the parties to ta-e ta-e
advantage of the #o!rt0s $!risdi#tion, s!bmit eviden#e on the #!stodial arrangement best serving Stephanie0s interest, and let the trial #o!rt render $!dgment. This disposition is #onsistent with the settled do#trine that in #hild #!stody pro#eedings, e!ity may be invo-ed to serve the #hild0s best interest.