Margaret Querubin vs Silvestre Querubin

July 29, 1950 G.R. No. L-3693 Ponente: Pablo, J. Mara (T !" #a"e $a" !n %&an!" '.'(( L!)te* )ro+ 3, 2009-2010 -!.e"t Grou&/

4n March that year, custody was granted to Silvestre under an interlocutory decree 5although the child was still %ept in the neutral home6 because at the time of the trial, Margaret was living with another man! 7pon Margaret/s petition, the interlocutory decree was modified! Since she had then married the man she was living with and had a stable home, the &ourt granted custody to Margaret with reasonable limitations on the part of the father! Silvestre, together with Querubina, left San -rancisco on November of the same year, went to the $hilippines and stayed in &agayan, (locos Sur, with the intent of protecting the child from the effects of her mother/s scandalous conduct! 8e wanted the child to be raised in a better environment! (n )*9:, Margaret, through counsel, presented to the &-( a petition for abea" #or&u" for the custody of Querubina urder the interlocutory decree of the &alifornia &ourt! She claims that under .rt! ,1 of ;ule +*, the decree of the 3os .ngeles &ourt, granting her the child/s custody, must be complied within the $hilippines!< ISSUES/ E!D: )! '4N the decree of a foreign court may be complied with in the $hilippines! RATIO: 20he decree is by no means final! (t is subject to change with the circumstances! 0he first decree awarded the custody of the child to the father, prohibiting the mother from ta%ing the child to her 5Margaret/s6 home because of her adulterous relationship with another man! 0he decree was amended when Margaret was not in 3os .ngeles! "ecause the decree is interlocutory, it cannot be implemented in the $hilippines! 'here the judgment is merely interlocutory, the determination of the question by the &ourt which rendered it did not settle and adjudge finally the rights of the parties! (n general, a decree of divorce awarding custody of the child to one of the spouses is respected by the &ourts of other states 2at the time and under the circumstances of its rendition2 but such a decree has no controlling effects in another state as to

SUMMARY: Spouses Querubin residing in New Mexico, after a decree of divorce was awarded joint custody in the form of equal visitation rights towards their child named Querubina which was placed in a neutral home ! "ecause Margaret started living with another man, Silvestre got custody through an interlocutory order and to protect the child from the mom#s scandalous conduct, went to the $hilippines! Margaret had that interlocutory order modified to retaining her custodial rights because she was now married and stable! She filed a writ of habeas corpus to ta%e bac% her child on the basis of the modified interlocutory order! S& disagrees! DOCTRINE: "ecause the decree is interlocutory, it cannot be implemented in the $hilippines! 'here the judgment is merely interlocutory, the determination of the question by the &ourt which rendered it did not settle and adjudge finally the rights of the parties!

FACTS: (n )*+,, Silvestre Querubin, a -ilipino, married petitioner Margaret Querubin, in .lbuquerque, New Mexico! /0hey had a daughter, Querubina! Margaret filed for divorce in )*,1 alleging 2mental cruelty!2 Silvestre filed a countersuit for divorce alleging Margaret/s infidelity! (n )*,*, the Superior &ourt of 3os .ngeles granted the divorce and awarded 2joint custody2 of the child! Querubina was to be %ept in a neutral home subject to reasonable visits by both parties! "oth parents were restrained from ta%ing Querubina out of &alifornia without the permission of the &ourt!

facts and conditions occurring subsequently to the date of the decree= and the &ourt of another state may, in proper proceedings, award custody otherwise upon proof of matters subsequent to the decree which justify the decree to the interest of the child! (n the case at bar, the circumstances have changed! Querubina is not in 3os .ngeles, she is in &agayan, (locos Sur, under her father/s care! (t is a long way from one place to the other! Neither can Margaret prove that she can pay the cost of passage for the minor! She is not a pac%et of cigarettes one can send by mail! Neither can she answer for Querubina/s support, care and education! (n comparison, the father has shown both interest in the child and capacity to provide for the needs of the child!2