A judgment for the custody of the child, like a judgment for support is not final and irrevocable. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. It would be for Shirley's welfare to remain in the custody of the petitioners.

The manifestation of the child Shirley that she would kill herself or run away from home if she should be taken away from the herein petitioners and forced to live with the private respondents, made during the hearings on the petitioners' motion to set aside the writ of execution and reiterated in her letters to the members of the Court dated September 19, 1984 4 and January 2, 1985, 5 and during the hearing of the case before this Court, is a circumstance that would make the execution of the judgment rendered in Spec. Proc. No. 9417 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal inequitable, unfair and unjust, if not illegal. Article 363 of the Civil Code provides that in all questions relating to the care, custody, education and property of the children, the latter's welfare is paramount. This means that the best interest of the minor can override procedural rules and even the rights of parents to the custody of their children. Since, in this case, the very life and existence of the minor is at stake and the child is in an age when she can exercise an intelligent choice, the courts can do no less than respect, enforce and give meaning and substance to that choice and uphold her right to live in an atmosphere conducive to her physical, moral and intellectual development. 6 The threat may be proven empty, but Shirley has a right to a wholesome family life that will provide her with love, care and understanding, guidance and counseling. and moral and material security. 7

Parental authority, known in Roman law as patria potestas, is defined as "the mass of rights and obligations which parents have in relation to the person and property of their children until their majority age or emancipation, and even after this under certain circumstances" (2 Manresa 8, cited in p. 657, Comments & Jurisprudence on the Civil Code, Tolentino, Vol. 1, 1983 ed.).

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-68374 June 18, 1985

HORACIO LUNA and LIBERTY HIZON-LUNA, petitioners,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON ROQUE A. TAMAYO, as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, NCR Branch CXXXI1 Makati, Metro Manila, MARIA LOURDES SANTOS, and SIXTO SALUMBIDES, respondents.