Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
AMANDA SEGURO,
Petitioner, SPECIAL PROC. No. 5817
ANSWER
Respondent, by counsel, unto the Honorable Court, respectfully
alleges:
(9)It is impliedly assumed that the Petitioner holds her right of custody
over the child, Christopher J. is based on the general rule that a child
under seven (7) years of age shall not be separated from his mother,
which is based on the basic need of a child for his mothers loving
care;
4 Id., Article 8.
Xxx
Xxx
Xxx
(Emphasis supplied)
(18) In fact, it is even the Petitioner who withheld the children from
respondent and avoided the calls and persistent contacts from the
respondent;
(19) During the summer of 2016, it was not the petitioner who is
taking care of the children but it was her parents;
(20) As such, her parents and their neighbors are the one who
insisted that respondent should take custody of the minor. They
insisted that respondent took custody of the child while the two
remaining children be in their own custody;
(25) Respondent on his part chose the best reputable school for the
child to be enrolled in;
(27) Since day one, even at the expense of the reputation of herein
respondent, and even how the situation may have affected the
personal relationship between the respondent and his legal family,
herein respondent never denied of his responsibility to the children;
(30) Since the birth of the children, respondent had always tried and
desired to foster an open and loving relationship between them;
(34) It is not true that respondent withheld from the petitioner the
custody of their child;
(35) Respondent took the minor child in to his custody to protect the
child from his mother who consistently fails to provide for their
childrens needs;
(37) The respondent is willing to settle the case in court upon proper
determination which of the two parents is most suitable to have the
custody over the minor child Christopher J;
(40) While the Rules of Court may be relaxed for persuasive and
weighty reasons to relieve a litigant from an injustice commensurate
with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedures,
nevertheless they must be faithfully followed7;
6 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147217, October 7,
2004, 440 SCRA 200, citing Mendigorin v. Cabantog, G.R. No. 136449, August 22,
2002, 387 SCRA 655.
(41) In the instant case, if petitioner fails to show any reason which
justifies relaxation of the Rules, petition shall warrant its dismissal;
(42) The courts have continuously held that procedural rules are not
to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance
may have prejudiced a partys substantive rights. Like all rules, they
are required to be followed except for the most persuasive of reasons
when they may be relaxed. Not one of these persuasive reasons is
present here.8
RELIEF
AHMAD U. ABDULJALIL
Counsel for the Respondent
Until December 2019
PTR No. 123456 / 01-15-19 / Iligan City
IBP No. 654321 / 01-13-19 / Iligan City
Attorneys Roll No. 789456 2006
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020571 June 5, 2013
7 Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. 138031, May 27, 2004, 429
SCRA 439.
AGAPITO APIT
Affiant