Article 214 of the Family Code: Grandparents' substitute parental authority

Only when the parents cannot exercise parental authority:

• Death of the parents;
• Absence of the parents;
• Unsuitability of the parents.

If only one parent dies or is absent, the other parent continues to exercise parental authority. Article 212 says so, and adds that the remarriage of the surviving parent does not affect that authority, unless the court appoints another person as guardian of the person or property of the children.

In Vancil v. Belmes (2001), a paternal grandmother asked to be the guardian of her grandchildren after their father died, and the mother opposed. The Supreme Court said that only in case of the parents' death, absence or unsuitability may substitute parental authority be exercised by the surviving grandparent. Since the mother was alive and had continuously exercised parental authority, the grandmother had to prove the mother's unsuitability. The Court also noted that the grandmother was a resident abroad and would not be able to perform a guardian's responsibilities.

Article 216 sets the full order:

(The text on the Supreme Court E-Library reads "the following person"; a 2024 decision quotes it as "persons".)

Because Article 216 applies "in default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian". In Santos v. Republic (2024), the Supreme Court deduced from these words that the judicially appointed guardian enjoys preference over the grant of substitute parental authority. It explained that applying to be a guardian is voluntary, while substitute parental authority arises by force of law.

In that case, a child's mother died the day after the birth, and the maternal aunt and grandmother raised the child, with the agreement of the father. The aunt asked to be appointed guardian. The lower courts denied it because she lived in the United Kingdom after her marriage. The Supreme Court granted the petition: it treated her absence as temporary, noted that she kept her Philippine citizenship and came back regularly, and said that the guardian's required availability does not mean continuous physical presence or proximity to the child. It listed the qualifications a court weighs, as set in the Rule on Guardianship of Minors, and said they are not exhaustive: moral character; physical, mental and psychological condition; financial status; relationship of trust with the minor; availability to exercise the powers and duties of a guardian; lack of conflict of interest; and ability to manage the minor's property.