Bondagjy v. Bondagjy

Sabrina Artadi converted to Islam in October 1987, although the conversion was not registered. On February 3, 1988 she married Fouzi Ali Bondagjy, a Muslim, under Islamic rites in Manila. Unknown to her, he was still married at the time to a Saudi Arabian woman, whom he later divorced. Their two children were born in Saudi Arabia in 1989 and 1990. From December 1995 the children lived in the house of Sabrina's mother in Alabang, and in December 1996 she had them baptized as Christians and changed their names. Fouzi sued for custody in the Shari'a District Court, and venue was later transferred to Zamboanga. He alleged that Sabrina was seen with different men at odd hours, wore clothing detestable under Islamic law, and let the children sweep a neighbor's house for a fee. Sabrina, who had reverted to Catholicism, filed a nullity, custody and support case in the RTC of Muntinlupa. Her motion to dismiss the Shari'a case, arguing that P.D. No. 1083 applies only to Muslims, was denied. After Fouzi presented evidence ex parte, the Shari'a District Court found Sabrina morally unfit under Muslim law and awarded custody to Fouzi. Sabrina petitioned the Supreme Court.

1. 1Whether Sabrina, having reverted to Catholicism, is still bound by Islamic moral standards in determining her fitness for custody.
2. 2Whether custody of the children should be awarded to Sabrina.

The petition was granted: "We apply civil law in the best interest of the children." The Shari'a court had found Sabrina unworthy under general principles of Muslim law. Reviewing the facts, the Court held that the burden of proving Sabrina unworthy lay on Fouzi, and his evidence was insufficient "according to Muslim law or the Family Code." The standard is not restricted to Muslim law: "What determines her capacity is the standard laid down by the Family Code now that she is not a Muslim." A parent's fitness depends on the ability to see to the children's physical, educational, social and moral welfare and to provide a healthy environment and support. Sabrina was financially capable. The welfare of the minors is controlling. Under Art. 211 of the Family Code the father and mother jointly exercise parental authority, and P.D. No. 1083 likewise provides for joint authority where the parents are not divorced or legally separated. Either parent may lose it only for a valid reason. As the parents had separated voluntarily, the Court found that Sabrina had more capacity and time to care for the children, whereas Fouzi's business kept him abroad or elsewhere most of the time. It also noted that under P.D. No. 603, custody of minors goes to the mother absent a compelling reason. Awarding custody to Sabrina did not strip Fouzi of parental authority (Silva v. CA), and visitation was his constitutionally protected natural and primary right. The Shari'a court decision was set aside. Sabrina received custody until the children reach majority, with expenses shared. Fouzi was given visitation at least weekly, and he may take the children out only with her written consent.