3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.105308.September25,1998]

HERBERTCANG,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALSandSpousesRONALDV.
CLAVANOandMARIACLARACLAVANO,respondents.
DECISION
ROMERO,J.:

Canminorchildrenbelegallyadoptedwithoutthewrittenconsentofanaturalparentontheground
that the latter has abandoned them? The answer to this interesting query, certainly not one of first
impression,wouldhavetobereached,notsolelyonthebasisoflawandjurisprudence,butalsothehard
realitypresentedbythefactsofthecase.
This is the question posed before this Court in this petition for review on certiorari of the
Decision[1]oftheCourtofAppealsaffirmingthedecreeofadoptionissuedbytheRegionalTrialCourt
of Cebu City, Branch 14,[2] in Special Proceedings No. 1744CEB, In the Matter of the Petition for
AdoptionoftheminorsKeith,CharmaineandJosephAnthony,allsurnamedCang,SpousesRonaldV.
ClavanoandMariaClaraDiagoClavano,petitioners.
Petitioner Herbert Cang andAnna Marie Clavano who were married on January 27, 1973, begot
threechildren,namely:Keith,bornonJuly3,1973Charmaine,bornonJanuary23,1977,andJoseph
Anthony,bornonJanuary3,1981.
During the early years of their marriage, the Cang couples relationship was undisturbed.Not long
thereafter,however,AnnaMarielearnedofherhusbandsallegedextramaritalaffairwithWilmaSoco,a
familyfriendoftheClavanos.
Uponlearningofherhusbandsallegedillicitliaison,AnnaMariefiledapetitionforlegalseparation
with alimony pendente lite[3] with the then Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Cebu[4] which
renderedadecision[5]approvingthejointmanifestationoftheCangspousesprovidingthattheyagreed
toliveseparatelyandapartorfrombedandboard.Theyfurtheragreed:
(c)ThatthechildrenofthepartiesshallbeentitledtoamonthlysupportofONETHOUSAND
PESOS(P1,000.00)effectivefromthedateofthefilingofthecomplaint.Thisshallconstitutea
firstlienonthenetproceedsofthehouseandlotjointlyownedbythepartiessituatedatCinco
Village,MandaueCity
(d)Thattheplaintiffshallbeentitledtoenterintoanycontractoragreementwithanypersonor
persons,naturalorjuridicalwithoutthewrittenconsentofthehusbandoranyundertakingor
actsthatordinarilyrequireshusbandsconsentasthepartiesarebythisagreementlegally
separated[6]
Petitioner then left for the United States where he sought a divorce fromAnna Marie before the
Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. Said court issued the divorce decree that also
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

1/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

granted sole custody of the three minor children to Anna Marie, reserving rights of visitation at all
reasonabletimesandplacestopetitioner.[7]
Thereafter, petitioner took anAmerican wife and thus became a naturalizedAmerican citizen. In
1986,hedivorcedhisAmericanwifeandneverremarried.
While in the United States, petitioner worked in Tablante Medical Clinic earning P18,000.00 to
P20,000.00amonth[8]aportionofwhichwasremittedtothePhilippinesforhischildrensexpensesand
another,depositedinthebankinthenameofhischildren.
Meanwhile,onSeptember25,1987,privaterespondentsRonaldV.ClavanoandMariaClaraDiago
Clavano,respectivelythebrotherandsisterinlawofAnnaMarie,filedSpecialProceedingsNo.1744
CEB for the adoption of the three minor Cang children before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. The
petition bears the signature of then 14yearold Keith signifying consent to his adoption. Anna Marie
likewisefiledanaffidavitofconsentallegingthatherhusbandhadevadedhislegalobligationtosupport
hischildrenthatherbrothersandsistersincludingRonaldV.Clavano,hadbeenhelpingherintaking
careofthechildrenthatbecauseshewouldbegoingtotheUnitedStatestoattendtoafamilybusiness,
leavingthechildrenwouldbeaproblemandwouldnaturallyhamper(her)jobseekingventureabroad
andthatherhusbandhadlongforfeitedhisparentalrightsoverthechildrenforthefollowingreasons:
1.ThedecisioninCivilCaseNo.JD707allowedhertoenterintoanycontractwithoutthewritten
consentofherhusband
2.HerhusbandhadleftthePhilippinestobeanillegalalienintheUnitedStatesandhadbeen
transferringfromoneplacetoanothertoavoiddetectionbyImmigrationauthorities,and
3.Herhusbandhaddivorcedher.
Upon learning of the petition for adoption, petitioner immediately returned to the Philippines and
filedanoppositionthereto,allegingthat,althoughprivaterespondentsRonaldandMariaClaraClavano
were financially capable of supporting the children while his finances were too meager compared to
theirs,hecouldnotinconscience,allowanybodytostriphimofhisparentalauthorityoverhisbeloved
children.
Pending resolution of the petition for adoption, petitioner moved to reacquire custody over his
childrenallegingthatAnnaMariehadtransferredtotheUnitedStatestherebyleavingcustodyoftheir
childrentoprivaterespondents.OnJanuary11,1988,theRegionalTrialCourtofCebuCity,Branch19,
issued an order finding that Anna Marie had, in effect, relinquished custody over the children and,
therefore, such custody should be transferred to the father. The court then directed the Clavanos to
delivercustodyovertheminorstopetitioner.
OnMarch27,1990,theRegionalTrialCourtofCebuCity,Branch14,issuedadecreeofadoption
withadispositiveportionreadingasfollows:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionforadoptionoftheminorsKeith,Charmaineand
JosephAnthonyallsurnamedCang,bythepetitionersspousesRonaldV.ClavanoandMariaClara
DiagoClavanoisherebygrantedandapproved.Thesechildrenshallhenceforthbeknownandcalledas
KeithD.Clavano,CharmaineD.ClavanoandJosephAnthonyD.Clavanorespectively.Moreover,this
DecreeofAdoptionshall:
(1)Conferupontheadoptedchildrenthesamerightsanddutiesasthoughtheywereinfactthe
legitimatechildrenofthepetitioners
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

2/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

(2)Dissolvetheauthorityvestedintheparentsbynature,ofthechildrenand,
(3)Vestthesameauthorityinthepetitioners.
FurnishtheLocalCivilRegistrarofCebuCity,PhilippineswithacopyofthisDecreeofAdoptionfor
registrationpurposes.
SOORDERED.
Insoruling,thelowercourtwasimpelledbythesereasons:
(1)TheCangchildrenhad,sincebirth,developedclosefilialtieswiththeClavanofamily,especially
theirmaternaluncle,petitionerRonaldClavano.
(2)RonaldandMariaClaraClavanowerechildlessand,withtheirprintingpress,realestate
business,exportbusinessandgasolinestationandminimartinRosemead,California,U.S.A.,
hadsubstantialassetsandincome.
(3)Thenaturalmotherofthechildren,AnnaMarie,nicknamedMenchu,approvedoftheadoption
becauseofherheartailment,nearfatalaccidentin1981,andthefactthatshecouldnotprovide
themasecureandhappyfutureasshetravelsalot.
(4)TheClavanoscouldprovidethechildrenmoralandspiritualdirectionastheywouldgotochurch
togetherandhadsentthechildrentoCatholicschools.
(5)ThechildrenthemselvesmanifestedtheirdesiretobeadoptedbytheClavanosKeithhad
testifiedandexpressedthewishtobeadoptedbytheClavanoswhilethetwoyoungeroneswere
observedbythecourttohavesnuggledclosetoRonaldeventhoughtheirnaturalmotherwas
around.
On the other hand, the lower court considered the opposition of petitioner to rest on a very shaky
foundationbecauseofitsfindingsthat:
(1)Petitionerwasmorallyunfittobethefatherofhischildrenonaccountofhisbeingan
improvidentfatherofhisfamilyandanundisguisedLothario.Thisconclusionisbasedonthe
testimonyofhisallegedparamour,motherofhistwosonsandclosefriendofAnnaMarie,
WilmaSoco,whosaidthatsheandpetitionerlivedashusbandandwifeintheveryhouseofthe
CangsinOpao,MandaueCity.
(2)Theallegeddepositsofaround$10,000thatwereofcomparativelyrecentdateswereattemptsat
verisimilitudeasthesewerejointdepositstheauthenticityofwhichcouldnotbeverified.
(3)Contrarytopetitionersclaim,thepossibilityofhisreconciliationwithAnnaMariewasdimifnot
nilbecauseitwaspetitionerwhodevised,engineeredandexecutedthedivorceproceedingsat
theNevadaWashoeCountycourt.
(4)ByhisnaturalizationasaU.S.citizen,petitionerisnowanalienfromthestandpointof
Philippinelawsandtherefore,howhisnewattachmentsandloyaltieswouldsitwithhis
(Filipino)childrenisanopenquestion.
QuotingwithapprovaltheevaluationandrecommendationoftheRTCSocialWorkerinherChild
StudyReport,thelowercourtconcludedasfollows:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

3/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

Simplyput,theoppositorHerbertCanghasabandonedhischildren.Andabandonmentofachildbyits
(sic)parentiscommonlyspecifiedbystatuteasagroundfordispensingwithhisconsenttoits(sic)
adoption(ReCozza,163Cal.514P.161,Ann.[As.1914A,214]).Indeed,insuchcase,adoptionwillbe
allowednotonlywithouttheconsentoftheparent,butevenagainsthisopposition(ReMcKeag,141Cal.
403,74P.1039,99Am.St.Rep.80ReCamp.131Cal.469,63P.736,82Am.St.Rep.371Grahamv.
Francis,83Colo.346,265P.690,citingR.C.L.Seibert,170Iowa,561,153N.W.160,citingR.C.L.
Stearnsv.Allen,183Mass.404,67N.E.34997Am.St.Rep.441Wilsonv.Otis,71N.H.483,53A.
439,93Am.St.Rep.564Nugentv.Powell,4Wyo.173,33P.23,20L.R.A.199,62Am.St.Rep.17.)
[9]

BeforetheCourtofAppeals,petitionercontendedthatthelowercourterredinholdingthatitwould
beinthebestinterestofthethreechildreniftheywereadoptedbyprivaterespondentsRonaldandMaria
ClaraClavano.Heassertedthatthepetitionforadoptionwasfatallydefectiveandtailoredtodivesthim
of parental authority because: (a) he did not have a written consent to the adoption (b) he never
abandonedhischildren(c)KeithandCharmainedidnotproperlygivetheirwrittenconsentand(d)the
petitionersforadoptiondidnotpresentaswitnesstherepresentativeoftheDepartmentofSocialWelfare
andDevelopmentwhomadethecasestudyreportrequiredbylaw.
TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthedecreeofadoptionstating:
Article188oftheFamilyCoderequiresthewrittenconsentofthenaturalparentsofthechildtobe
adopted.Ithasbeenheldhoweverthattheconsentoftheparentwhohasabandonedthechildisnot
necessary(Dayritvs.Piccio,92Phil.729Santosvs.Ananzanso,16SCRA344).Thequestiontherefore
iswhetherornotoppositormaybeconsideredashavingabandonedthechildren.Inadoptioncases,
abandonmentconnotesanyconductonthepartoftheparenttoforegoparentaldutiesandrelinquish
parentalclaimstothechild,ortheneglectorrefusaltoperformthenaturalandlegalobligationswhich
parentsowetheirchildren(Santosvs.Ananzanso,supra),orthewithholdingoftheparentspresence,his
careandtheopportunitytodisplayvoluntaryaffection.Theissueofabandonmentisamplycoveredby
thediscussionofthefirsterror.
Oppositorarguesthathehasbeensendingdollarremittancestothechildrenandhasinfacteven
maintainedbankaccountsintheirnames.Hisdutytoprovidesupportcomesfromtwojudicial
pronouncements.Thefirst,thedecisioninJD707CEB,supra,obligeshimtopaythechildrenP1,000.00
amonth.ThesecondismandatedbythedivorcedecreeoftheNevada,U.S.A.FederalCourtwhich
ordershimtopaymonthlysupportofUS$50.00foreachchild.Oppositorhasnotsubmittedanyevidence
toshowcompliancewiththedecisioninJD101CEB,buthehassubmitted22cancelleddollarchecks
(Exhs.24to45)drawninthechildrensnamestotalling$2,126.98.ThelastremittancewasonOctober6,
1987(Exh.45).HisobligationtoprovidesupportcommencedunderthedivorcedecreeonMay5,1982
sothatasofOctober6,1987,oppositorshouldhavemade53remittancesof$150.00,oratotalof
$7,950.00.NootherremittanceswereshowntohavebeenmadeafterOctober6,1987,sothatasofthis
date,oppositorwaswoefullyinarrearsunderthetermsofthedivorcedecree.Andsincehewastotallyin
defaultofthejudgmentinJD707CEB,theinevitableconclusionisoppositorhadnotreallybeen
performinghisdutiesasafather,contrarytohisprotestations.
True,ithasbeenshownthatoppositorhadopenedthreeaccountsindifferentbanks,asfollows
Acct.No.

DateOpened
July23,1985
1)1186064374 Oct.29,1987

2)731668

Balance
$5,018.50

March5,1986
Oct.26,1987

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

3,129.00

NameofBank
GreatWesternSavings,DalyCity,Cal.,
U.S.A.

MatewanNationalBankofWilliamson,
WestVirginia,U.S.A.
4/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

3)564146883

December31,1986
Oct.29,1987

2,622.19

SecurityPacificNationalBank,Daly
City,Cal.,U.S.A.

ThefirstandthirdaccountswereopenedhoweverinoppositorsnameastrusteeforCharmaineCangand
JosephAnthonyCang,respectively.Inotherwords,theaccountsareoperatedandtheamounts
withdrawablebyoppositorhimselfanditcannotbesaidthattheybelongtotheminors.Thesecondisan
`oraccount,inthenamesofHerbertCangorKeithCang.SinceKeithisaminorandinthePhilippines,
saidaccountisoperableonlybyoppositorandthefundswithdrawablebyhimalone.
Thebankaccountsdonotreallyservewhatoppositorclaimedinhisofferofevidence`theaimand
purposeofprovidingforabetterfutureandsecurityofhisfamily.[10]
PetitionermovedtoreconsiderthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.Heemphasizedthatthedecree
oflegalseparationwasnotbasedonthemeritsofthecaseasitwasbasedonamanifestationamounting
toacompromiseagreementbetweenhimandAnnaMarie.Thatheandhiswifeagreedupontheplanfor
him to leave for the United States was borne out by the fact that prior to his departure to the United
States, the family lived with petitioners parents. Moreover, he alone did not instigate the divorce
proceedingsasheandhiswifeinitiatedthejointcomplaintfordivorce.
Petitionerarguedthatthefindingthathewasnotfittorearandcareforhischildrenwasbeliedby
the award to him of custody over the children in Civil Case No. JD707. He took exception to the
appellate courts findings that as anAmerican citizen he could no longer lay claim to custody over his
childrenbecausehiscitizenshipwouldnottakeawaythefactthatheisstillafathertohischildren. As
regardshisallegedillicitrelationshipwithanotherwoman,hehadalwaysdeniedthesamebothinCivil
CaseNo.JD707andtheinstantadoptioncase.NeitherwasittruethatWilmaSocowasaneighborand
familyfriendoftheClavanosasshewasresidinginMandaueCityseven(7)kilometersawayfromthe
ClavanoswhowereresidentsofCebuCity.PetitionerinsistedthatthetestimonyofWilmaSocoshould
not have been given weight for it was only during the hearing of the petition for adoption that Jose
Clavano,abrotherofRonald,cametoknowherandwenttoherresidenceinIliganCitytoconvinceher
tobeawitnessformonetaryconsiderations.Lastly,petitioneraverredthatitwouldbehypocriticalofthe
Clavanostoclaimthattheycouldlovethechildrenmuchmorethanhecould.[11]
Hismotionforreconsiderationhavingbeendenied,petitionerisnowbeforethisCourt,allegingthat
thepetitionforadoptionwasfatallydefectiveasitdidnothavehiswrittenconsentasanaturalfatheras
requiredbyArticle31(2)ofPresidentialDecreeNo.603,theChildandYouthWelfareCode,andArticle
188(2)oftheFamilyCode.
Article31ofP.D.No.603provides
ART.31.WhoseConsentisNecessary.Thewrittenconsentofthefollowingtotheadoptionshallbe
necessary:
(1)Thepersontobeadopted,iffourteenyearsofageorover
(2)ThenaturalparentsofthechildorhislegalguardianoftheDepartmentofSocialWelfareor
anydulylicensedchildplacementagencyunderwhosecarethechildmaybe
(3)Thenaturalchildren,fourteenyearsandabove,oftheadoptingparents.(Underscoring
supplied)
OnDecember17,1986,thenPresidentCorazonC.AquinoissuedExecutiveOrderNo.91amending
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

5/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

Articles27,28,29,31,33and35oftheChildandYouthWelfareCode.As thus amended,Article 31

read:
ART.31.WhoseConsentisNecessary.Thewrittenconsentofthefollowingtotheadoptionshallbe
necessary:
(1)Thepersontobeadopted,iffourteenyearsofageorover
(2)Thenaturalparentsofthechildorhislegalguardianafterreceivingcounsellingand
appropriatesocialservicesfromtheMinistryofSocialServicesandDevelopmentorfrom
adulylicensedchildplacementagency
(3)TheMinistryofSocialServicesandDevelopmentoranydulylicensedchildplacement
agencyunderwhosecareandlegalcustodythechildmaybe
(4)Thenaturalchildren,fourteenyearsandabove,oftheadoptingparents.(Underscoring
supplied)
Jurisdictionbeingamatterofsubstantivelaw,theestablishedruleisthatthestatuteinforceatthe
time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court.[12] As such, when
private respondents filed the petition for adoption on September 25, 1987, the applicable law was the
ChildandYouthWelfareCode,asamendedbyExecutiveOrderNo.91.
During the pendency of the petition for adoption or on August 3, 1988, the Family Code which
amendedtheChildandYouthWelfareCodetookeffect.Article256oftheFamilyCodeprovidesforits
retroactivityinsofarasitdoesnotprejudiceorimpairvestedoracquiredrightsinaccordancewiththe
Civil Code or other laws. As amended by the Family Code, the statutory provision on consent for
adoptionnowreads:
Art.188.Thewrittenconsentofthefollowingtotheadoptionshallbenecessary:
(1)Thepersontobeadopted,iftenyearsofageorover
(2)Theparentsbynatureofthechild,thelegalguardian,orthepropergovernment
instrumentality
(3)Thelegitimateandadoptedchildren,tenyearsofageorover,oftheadoptingparentor
parents
(4)Theillegitimatechildren,tenyearsofageorover,oftheadoptingparents,iflivingwithsaid
parentandthelattersspouse,ifanyand
(5)Thespouse,ifany,ofthepersonadoptingortobeadopted.(Underscoringsupplied)
Based on the foregoing, it is thus evident that notwithstanding the amendments to the law, the
written consent of the natural parent to the adoption has remained a requisite for its validity. Notably,
suchrequirementisalsoembodiedinRule99oftheRulesofCourtasfollows:
SEC.3.Consenttoadoption.Thereshallbefiledwiththepetitionawrittenconsenttotheadoption
signedbythechild,iffourteenyearsofageoroverandnotincompetent,andbythechildsspouse,ifany,
andbyeachofitsknownlivingparentswhoisnotinsaneorhopelesslyintemperateorhasnotabandoned
thechild,oriftherearenosuchparentsbythegeneralguardianorguardianadlitemofthechild,orif
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

6/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

thechildisinthecustodyofanorphanasylum,childrenshome,orbenevolentsocietyorperson,bythe
properofficerorofficersofsuchasylum,home,orsociety,orbysuchpersonsbutifthechildis
illegitimateandhasnotbeenrecognized,theconsentofitsfathertotheadoptionshallnotberequired.
(Underscoringsupplied)
Asclearlyinferredfromtheforegoingprovisionsoflaw,thewrittenconsentofthenaturalparentis
indispensableforthevalidityofthedecreeofadoption.Nevertheless,therequirementofwrittenconsent
canbedispensedwithiftheparenthasabandonedthechild[13]orthatsuchparentisinsaneorhopelessly
intemperate. The court may acquire jurisdiction over the case even without the written consent of the
parents or one of the parents provided that the petition for adoption alleges facts sufficient to warrant
exemption from compliance therewith.This is in consonance with the liberality with which this Court
treatstheproceduralaspectofadoption.Thus,theCourtdeclared:
xxx.Thetechnicalrulesofpleadingshouldnotbestringentlyappliedtoadoptionproceedings,anditis
deemedmoreimportantthatthepetitionshouldcontainfactsrelatingtothechildanditsparents,which
maygiveinformationtothoseinterested,thanthatitshouldbeformallycorrectasapleading.
Accordingly,itisgenerallyheldthatapetitionwillconferjurisdictionifitsubstantiallycomplieswith
theadoptionstatute,allegingallfactsnecessarytogivethecourtjurisdiction.[14]
Intheinstantcase,onlytheaffidavitofconsentofthenaturalmotherwasattachedtothepetitionfor
adoption. Petitioners consent, as the natural father is lacking. Nonetheless, the petition sufficiently
allegedthefactofabandonmentoftheminorsforadoptionbythenaturalfatherasfollows:
3.Thatthechildrensmother,sisterofpetitionerRONALDV.CLAVANO,hasgivenherexpressconsent
tothisadoption,asshownbyAffidavitofConsent,Annex`A.Likewise,thewrittenconsentofKeith
Cang,now14yearsofageappearsonpage2ofthispetitionHowever,thefatherofthechildren,Herbert
Cang,hadalreadylefthiswifeandchildrenandhadalreadydivorcedtheformer,asevidencedbythe
xeroxcopyoftheDECREEOFDIVORCEissuedbytheCountyofWashoe,StateofNevada,U.S.A.
(Annex`B)whichwasfiledattheinstanceofMr.Cang,notlongafterheabandonedhisfamilytolivein
theUnitedStatesasanillegalimmigrant.[15]
The allegations of abandonment in the petition for adoption, even absent the written consent of
petitioner, sufficiently vested the lower court with jurisdiction since abandonment of the child by his
naturalparentsisoneofthecircumstancesunderwhichourstatutesandjurisprudence[16]dispensewith
therequirementofwrittenconsenttotheadoptionoftheirminorchildren.
However,incaseswherethefatheropposestheadoptionprimarilybecausehisconsenttheretowas
notsought,thematterofwhetherhehadabandonedhischildbecomesaproperissuefordetermination.
Theissueofabandonmentbytheoppositornaturalparentisapreliminaryissuethatanadoptioncourt
mustfirstconfront.Onlyuponfailureoftheoppositornaturalfathertoprovetothesatisfactionofthe
courtthathedidnotabandonhischildmaythepetitionforadoptionbeconsideredonitsmerits.
Asarule,factualfindingsofthelowercourtsarefinalandbindinguponthisCourt.[17]ThisCourtis
not expected nor required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the
parties.[18]However,althoughthisCourtisnotatrieroffacts,ithastheauthoritytoreviewandreverse
thefactualfindingsofthelowercourtsifitfindsthatthesedonotconformtotheevidenceonrecord.[19]
In Reyes v. Court ofAppeals, [20] this Court has held that the exceptions to the rule that factual
findingsofthetrialcourtarefinalandconclusiveandmaynotbereviewedonappealarethefollowing:
(1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible (2) when there is a grave
abuseofdiscretion(3)whenthefindingisgroundedentirelyonspeculations,surmisesorconjectures
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

7/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

(4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts (5) when the
findingsoffactareconflicting(6)whentheCourtofAppeals,inmakingitsfindings,wentbeyondthe
issuesofthecaseandthesameiscontrarytotheadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee(7)whenthe
findingsoftheCourtofAppealsarecontrarytothoseofthetrialcourt(8)whenthefindingsoffactare
conclusionswithoutcitationofspecificevidenceonwhichtheyarebased(9)whentheCourtofAppeals
manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of
Appealsarepremisedontheabsenceofevidenceandarecontradictedbytheevidenceonrecord.
This Court finds that both the lower court and the Court ofAppeals failed to appreciate facts and
circumstancesthatshouldhaveelicitedadifferentconclusion[21]ontheissueofwhetherpetitionerhas
soabandonedhischildren,therebymakinghisconsenttotheadoptionunnecessary.
Initsordinarysense,thewordabandonmeanstoforsakeentirely,toforsakeorrenounceutterly.The
dictionariestracethiswordtotherootideaofputtingunderaban.Theemphasisisonthefinalityand
publicitywithwhichathingorbodyisthusputinthecontrolofanother,hence,themeaningofgivingup
absolutely,withintentnevertoresumeorclaimonesrightsorinterests.[22]Inreferencetoabandonment
ofachildbyhisparent,theactofabandonmentimportsanyconductoftheparentwhichevincesasettled
purposetoforegoallparentaldutiesandrelinquishallparentalclaimstothechild.Itmeansneglector
refusaltoperformthenaturalandlegalobligationsofcareandsupportwhichparentsowetheirchildren.
[23]

In the instant case, records disclose that petitioners conduct did not manifest a settled purpose to
forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims over his children as to constitute
abandonment.Physicalestrangementalone,withoutfinancialandmoraldesertion,isnottantamountto
abandonment.[24]Whileadmittedly,petitionerwasphysicallyabsentashewasthenintheUnitedStates,
he was not remiss in his natural and legal obligations of love, care and support for his children. He
maintainedregularcommunicationwithhiswifeandchildrenthroughlettersandtelephone.Heusedto
sendpackagesbymailandcateredtotheirwhims.
Petitioners testimony on the matter is supported by documentary evidence consisting of the
followinghandwrittenletterstohimofbothhiswifeandchildren:
1.Exh.1a4pageundatedletterofMenchu(AnnaMarie)addressedtoDearBertonaC.Westates
CarbonPhil.Corp.stationery.Menchustatedthereinthatithadbeenalongtimesincethelasttime
youveheardfrommeexcludingthatofthephoneconversationwevehad.Shediscussedpetitioners
intentiontobuyamotorbikeforKeith,expressingapprehensionoverrisksthatcouldbeengendered
byKeithsuseofit.Shesaidthatinthelastphoneconversationshehadwithpetitioneronthe
birthdayofMa,sheforgottotellpetitionerthatKeithsvoicehadchangedhehadbecomeabagito
orateenagerwithmanyfanswhosenthimValentinescards.ShetoldhimhowCharmainehad
becomequiteatalkativealmostdalagawhocouldcarryonaconversationwithherangkongand
howprettyshewasinwhitedresswhenshewonamongthecandidatesintheFloresdeMayoafter
shehadprayedsohardforit.Sheinformedhim,however,thatshewasworriedbecauseCharmaine
wasvainandwonttoextravaganceasshelovedclothes.AboutJoeton(JosephAnthony),shetold
petitionerthattheboywassmartforhisageandquitespoiledbeingtheyoungestofthechildrenin
Lahug.JoetonwasmischievousbutKeithwashisidolwithwhomhewouldsleepanytime.She
admittedhavingsaidsomuchaboutthechildrenbecausetheymightnothaveinformedpetitionerof
somehappeningsandspicesoflifeaboutthemselves.Shesaidthatitwasjustveryexcitingtoknow
howtheyvegrownupandverypleasant,too,thateachofthemhave(sic)differentcharacters.She
endedtheletterwiththehopethatpetitionerwasatthebestofhealth.Afterextendingherregardsto
all,shesignedhernameafterthewordLove.ThisletterwasmailedonJuly9,1986fromCebuto
petitionerwhoseaddresswasP.O.Box2445,Williamson,WestVirginia25661(Exh.1D).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

8/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

2.Exh.2letterdated11/13/84onagreenstationerywithgoldenprintofanotefromMenchuonthe
leftuppercorner.AnnaMariestatedthatwewrotetopetitioneronOct.2,1984andthatKeithand
Joetonwereveryexcitedwhenpetitionercalleduplasttime.ShetoldhimhowJoetonwouldgrab
thephonefromKeithjustsopetitionerwouldknowwhathewantedtoorder.Charmaine,whowas
asleep,wassodisappointedthatshemissedpetitionerscallbecauseshealsowantedsomethingthat
petitionershouldbuy.MenchutoldpetitionerthatCharmainewantedapencilsharpener,light
coloredTshirtsforherwalkingshortsanda(k)napsack.AnnaMarieinformedpetitionerthatthe
kidsweregrowingupandsoweretheirneeds.Shetoldpetitionertobeveryfatherlyaboutthe
childrensneedsbecausethosewereexpensivehere.Forherself,AnnaMarieaskedforasubscription
ofGlamourandVoguemagazinesandthatwhateverexpenseshewouldincur,shewouldreplace
these.Asapostscript,shetoldpetitionerthatKeithwantedasize6khakicoloredSperrytopsider
shoes.
3.Exh.3anundatednoteonayellowsmallpieceofpaperthatreads:
DearHerbert,
Hi,howwasChristmasandNewYear?Hopeyouhadawonderfulone.
Bythewaythanksfortheshoes,itwasaniceone.ItsnicetobethoughtofatXmas.Thanksagain.
Sincerely,
Menchu
4.Exh.4atwopageundatedletterofKeithonstationeryofJoseClavano,Inc.addressedtoDear
Dad.Keithtoldhisfatherthattheytriedtotelltheirmothertostayforalittlewhile,justafewweeks
afterclassesstart(s)onJune16.HeinformedpetitionerthatJoetonwouldbeinKinderIandthat,
aboutthemotorbike,hehadtoldhismothertowritepetitioneraboutitandwellseewhatyoure(sic)
decisionwillbe.Heaskedforchocolates,nuts,basketballshirtandshorts,rubbershoes,socks,
headband,someclothesforoutingandperfume.Hetoldpetitionerthattheyhadbeengoingto
LahugwiththeirmotherpickingthemupafterAngkongorAmahadpreparedlunchordinner.From
heraerobics,hismotherwouldgofortheminLahugatabout9:30or10:00oclockintheevening.
Hewishedhisfatherluckandthebestofhealthandthattheyprayedforhimandtheirother
relatives.TheletterwasendedwithLoveKeith.
5.Exh.5anotherundatedlongletterofKeith.HethankedhisfatherfortheChristmascardwith
$40.00,$30.00and$30.00andthecardofJoetonwith$5.00inside.Hetoldpetitionertheamounts
followinghisfathersinstructionsandpromisetosendmoneythroughthemail.Heaskedhisfather
toaddresshisletterdirectlytohimbecausehewantedtoopenhisownletters.Heinformed
petitionerofactivitiesduringtheChristmasseasonthattheyenjoyedeating,playingandgiving
surprisestotheirmother.Heapprisedhimofhisdailyscheduleandthattheirmotherhadbeen
closelysupervisingthem,instructingthemtofoldtheirblanketsandpileuptheirpillows.He
informedpetitionerthatJoetonhadbecomeverysmartwhileCharmaine,whowasalsosmart,was
verydemandingoftheirmother.BecausetheirmotherwasleavingfortheUnitedStatesonFebruary
5,theywouldbemissingherliketheyweremissingpetitioner.Heaskedforhisthingsand$200.00.
HetoldpetitionermoreanecdotesaboutJoetonlikehewouldmakethesignofthecrossevenwhen
theywouldpassbytheIglesianiCristochurchandhisinsistencethatAquinowasnotdeadbecause
hehadseenhimonthebetamaxmachine.ForKeith,Charmainehadbecomeverymalditawhowas
notalwayssatisfiedwithherdollsandthingsbutJoetonwasfullofsurprises.Heendedtheletter
withLoveyourson,Keith.TheletterwasmailedonFebruary6,1985(Exh.5D).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

9/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

6.Exh.6anundatedletterCharmaine.Shethankedpetitionerforthebathingsuit,keychain,pencil
box,socks,halfshirt,pencilsharpenerand$50.00.SheremindedhimofofherbirthdayonJanuary
23whenshewouldturn9yearsold.Sheinformedhimthatsheworesize10andthesizeofherfeet
wasIM.TheyhadfunatChristmasinLahugbutclasseswouldstartonJanuary9althoughKeiths
classeshadstartedonJanuary6.TheywouldfeelsadagainbecauseMommywouldbeleavingsoon.
Shehopedpetitionerwouldkeepwritingthem.Shesigned,Love,Charmaine.
7.Exh.7anundatedletterofKeith.Heexplainedtopetitionerthattheyhadnotbeenremissin
writingletterstohim.HeinformedhimoftheirtriptoManilatheywenttoMalacaang,TitoDoy
Laurelshouse,theMinistryofForeignAffairs,theexecutivehouse,Tagaytayforthreedaysand
Baguioforoneweek.Heinformedhimthathegothonors,Charmainewas7thinherclassand
Joetonhadexcellentgrades.JoetonwouldbeenrolledinSacredHeartsoonandhewasgladthey
wouldbetogetherinthatschool.HeaskedforhisrewardfrompetitionerandsowithCharmaineand
Joeton.Heaskedforamotorbikeanddollarsthathecouldsave.Hetoldpetitionerthathewas
savingthemoneyhehadbeensendingthem.Hesaidhemissedpetitionerandwishedhimthebest.
HeaddedthatpetitionershouldcallthemonSundays.
8.Exh.8aletterfromJoetonandCharmainebutapparentlywrittenbythelatter.Sheaskedfor
moneyfrompetitionertobuysomethingfortheschoolandsomethingelse.Shepromisednotto
spendsomuchandtosavesome.Shesaidshelovedpetitionerandmissedhim.Joetonsaidhi!to
petitioner.AfterendingtheletterwithLove,JoetonandCharmaine,sheaskedforherprizeforher
gradesasshegotseventhplace.
9.Exh.9undatedletterofKeith.Heassuredpetitionerthathehadbeenwritinghimthathewould
liketohavesomemoneybuthewouldsavethemthathelearnedthatpetitionerhadcalledthemup
buthewasnotaroundthathewouldbegoingtoManilabutwouldbebackhomeMay3thathis
MommyhadjustarrivedThursdayafternoon,andthathewouldbetheofficialaltarboy.Heasked
petitionertowritethemsoon.
10.Exh.10Keiththankedpetitionerforthemoneyhesent.Hetoldpetitionerthathewassaving
someinthebankandhewasproudbecausehewastheonlyoneinhisgroupwhosavedinthebank.
HetoldhimthatJoetonhadbecomenaughtyandwouldclaimashisowntheshirtssenttoKeithby
petitioner.HeadvisedpetitionertosendpantsandshirtstoJoeton,too,andaskedforapairof
topsidershoesandcandies.Heinformedpetitionerthathewasamemberofthebasketballteamand
thathismomwoulddriveforhisgroup.HeaskedhimtocallthemoftenlikethefatherofAna
Christieandtowritethemwhenhewouldcallsothattheycouldwaitforit.Heinformedpetitioner
thattheyhadallgrownbiggerandheavier.Hehopedpetitionerwouldbehappywiththeletterthat
hadtakenhimsolongtowritebecausehedidnotwanttocommitanymistakes.Heaskedpetitioner
tobuyhimperfume(Drakkar)and,afterthankingpetitioner,addedthatthelattershouldbuy
somethingforMommy.
11.Exh.11aChristmascardForMyWonderfulFatherdatedOctober8,1984fromKeith,
CharmaineandJoeton.
12.Exh.12anotherChristmascard,OurWishForYouwiththeyear83writtenontheupperright
handcorneroftheinsidepage,fromKeith,CharmaineandJoeton.
13.Exh.13aletterofKeithtellingpetitionerthathehadwrittenhimevenwhentheirMomwas
therewheresheboughtthemclothesandshoes.Keithaskedpetitionerfor$300.00.Becausehis
motherwouldnotagreetobuyhimamotorbike,hewantedaKaraokeunitthatwouldcost
P12,000.00.Heinformedpetitionerthathewouldgotoanafternoondiscowithfriendsbuttheir
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

10/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

gradeswereallgoodwithJoetonreceivingstarsforexcellence.Keithwantedabowandarrow
RambotoysandG.I.Joe.Heexpressedhisdesirethatpetitionerwouldcomeandvisitthem
someday.
14.Exh.14aletterofKeithwithoneofthefourpagesbearingthedateJanuary1986.Keithtoldhis
fatherthattheyhadreceivedthepackagethatthelattersentthem.Theclotheshesent,however,
fittedonlyKeithbutnotCharmaineandJoetonwhohadbothgrownbigger.Keithaskedforgrocery
items,toysandmoreclothes.Heasked,inbehalfofhismother,forlowheeledshoesandadressto
match,joggingpants,tightsandleotardsthatwouldmakeherlooksexy.Heintimatedtopetitioner
thathehadgrowntallerandthathewasalreadyashamedtobeaskingforthingstobuyinthe
groceryeventhoughhismotherhadtoldhimnottobeshyaboutit.
Asidefromtheseletters,petitioneralsopresentedcertificationsofbanksintheU.S.A.showingthat
even prior to the filing of the petition for adoption, he had deposited amounts for the benefit of his
children.[25]Exhibits24to45arecopiesofcheckssentbypetitionertothechildrenfrom1985to1989.
These pieces of evidence are all on record. It is, therefore, quite surprising why the courts below
simply glossed over these, ignoring not only evidence on financial support but also the emotional
exchange of sentiments between petitioner and his family. Instead, the courts below emphasized the
meagernessoftheamountshesenttohischildrenandthefactthat,asregardsthebankdeposits,these
were withdrawable by him alone. Simply put, the courts below attached a high premium to the
prospectiveadoptersfinancialstatusbuttotallybrushedasidethepossiblerepercussionoftheadoption
ontheemotionalandpsychologicalwellbeingofthechildren.
True, Keith had expressed his desire to be adopted by his uncle and aunt. However, his seeming
steadfastnessonthematterasshownbyhistestimonyiscontradictedbyhisfeelingstowardshisfatheras
revealedinhisletterstohim.ItisnotatallfarfetchedtoconcludethatKeithstestimonywasactuallythe
effect of the filing of the petition for adoption that would certainly have engendered confusion in his
youngmindastothecapabilityofhisfathertosustainthelifestylehehadbeenusedto.
The courts below emphasized respondents emotional attachment to the children. This is hardly
surprising for, from the very start of their young lives, the children were used to their presence. Such
attachment had persisted and certainly, the young ones act of snuggling close to private respondent
RonaldClavanowasnotindicativeoftheiremotionaldetachmentfromtheirfather.Privaterespondents,
beingtheuncleandauntofthechildren,couldnotbutcometotheirsuccorwhentheyneededhelpas
whenKeithgotsickandprivaterespondentRonaldspentforhishospitalbills.
In a number of cases, this Court has held that parental authority cannot be entrusted to a person
simplybecausehecouldgivethechildalargermeasureofmaterialcomfortthanhisnaturalparent.Thus,
inDavidv.CourtofAppeals,[26]theCourtawardedcustodyofaminorillegitimatechildtohismother
whowasameresecretaryandmarketvendorinsteadoftohisaffluentfatherwhowasamarriedman,not
solelybecausethechildoptedtogowithhismother.TheCourtsaid:
Daisieandherchildrenmaynotbeenjoyingalifeofaffluencethatprivaterespondentpromisesifthe
childliveswithhim.Itisenough,however,thatpetitionerisearningadecentlivingandisabletosupport
herchildrenaccordingtohermeans.
InCelisv.Cafuir[27]wheretheCourtwasconfrontedwiththeissueofwhethertoawardcustodyofa
childtothenaturalmotherortoafostermother,thisCourtsaid:
Thiscourtshouldavertthetragedyintheyearstocomeofhavingdeprivedmotherandsonofthe
beautifulassociationsandtender,imperishablememoriesengenderedbytherelationshipofparentand
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

11/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

child.Weshouldnottakeawayfromamothertheopportunityofbringingupherownchildevenatthe
costofextremesacrificeduetopovertyandlackofmeanssothatafterwards,shemaybeabletolook
backwithprideandasenseofsatisfactionathersacrificesandherefforts,howeverhumble,tomakeher
dreamsofherlittleboycometrue.Weshouldnotforgetthattherelationshipbetweenafostermotherand
achildisnotnaturalbutartificial.Ifthechildturnsouttobeafailureorforgetfulofwhatitsfoster
parentshaddoneforhim,saidparentsmightyetcountandappraise(sic)allthattheyhavedoneand
spentforhimandwithregretconsiderallofitasadeadloss,andevenruethedaytheycommittedthe
blunderoftakingthechildintotheirheartsandtheirhome.Notsowitharealnaturalmotherwhonever
countsthecostandhersacrifices,evertreasuringmemoriesofherassociationswithherchild,however
unpleasantanddisappointing.Fleshandbloodcount.xxx.
In Espiritu v. Court of Appeals, [28] the Court stated that (I)n ascertaining the welfare and best
interests of the child, courts are mandated by the Family Code to take into account all relevant
considerations.Thus,inawardingcustodyofthechildtothefather,theCourtsaid:
AscrutinyofthepleadingsinthiscaseindicatesthatTeresita,oratleast,hercounselaremoreintenton
emphasizingthe`tortureandagonyofamotherseparatedfromherchildrenandthehumiliationshe
sufferedasaresultofhercharacterbeingmadeakeyissueincourtratherthanthefeelingsandfuture,
thebestinterestsandwelfareofherchildren.Whilethebondsbetweenamotherandhersmallchildare
specialinnature,eitherparent,whetherfatherormother,isboundtosufferagonyandpainifdeprived
ofcustody.Onecannotsaythathisorhersufferingisgreaterthanthatoftheotherparent.Itisnotso
muchthesuffering,pride,andotherfeelingsofeitherparentbutthewelfareofthechildwhichisthe
paramountconsideration.(Italicssupplied)[29]
Indeed,itwouldbeagainstthespiritofthelawiffinancialconsiderationweretobetheparamount
consideration in deciding whether to deprive a person of parental authority over his children. There
shouldbeaholisticapproachtothematter,takingintoaccountthephysical,emotional,psychological,
mental, social and spiritual needs of the child.[30] The conclusion of the courts below that petitioner
abandonedhisfamilyneedsmoreevidentiarysupportotherthanhisinabilitytoprovidethemthematerial
comfort that his admittedly affluent inlaws could provide. There should be proof that he had so
emotionally abandoned them that his children would not miss his guidance and counsel if they were
giventoadoptingparents.Thelettershereceivedfromhischildrenprovethatpetitionermaintainedthe
moreimportantemotionaltiebetweenhimandhischildren.Thechildrenneededhimnotonlybecause
he could cater to their whims but also because he was a person they could share with their daily
activities,problemsandtriumphs.
TheCourtisthusdismayedthatthecourtsbelowdidnotlookbeyondpetitionersmeagerfinancial
support to ferret out other indications on whether petitioner had in fact abandoned his family. The
omissionofsaidcourtshasledustoexaminewhythechildrenweresubjectedtotheprocessofadoption,
notwithstandingtheproventiesthatboundthemtotheirfather.Toourconsternation,therecordofthe
casebearsoutthefactthatthewelfareofthechildrenwasnotexactlytheparamountconsiderationthat
impelledAnnaMarietoconsenttotheiradoption.
Inheraffidavitofconsent,AnnaMarieexpresslysaidthatleavingthechildreninthecountry,asshe
waswonttotravelabroadoften,wasaproblemthatwouldnaturallyhamperherjobseekingabroad.In
otherwords,theadoptionappearstobeamatterofconvenienceforherbecauseAnnaMarieherselfis
financiallycapableofsupportingherchildren.[31]Inhistestimony,privaterespondentRonaldsworethat
AnnaMariehadbeenoutofthecountryfortwoyearsandcamehometwiceorthreetimes,[32]thereby
manifestingthefactthatitwasshewhoactuallyleftherchildrentothecareofherrelatives.Itwasbad
enoughthattheirfatherlefttheirchildrenwhenhewentabroad,butwhentheirmotherfollowedsuitfor
herownreasons,thesituationworsened.TheClavanofamilymusthaverealizedthis.Hence,whenthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

12/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

familyfirstdiscussedtheadoptionofthechildren,theydecidedthattheprospectiveadoptershouldbe
AnnaMariesbrotherJose.However,becausehehadchildrenofhisown,thefamilydecidedtodevolve
thetaskuponprivaterespondents.[33]
Thiscouple,however,couldnotalwaysbeinCebutocareforthechildren.Abusinessman,private
respondent Ronald Clavano commutes between Cebu and Manila while his wife, private respondent
MariaClara,isaninternationalflightstewardess.[34]Moreover,privaterespondentRonaldclaimedthat
hecouldtakecareofthechildrenwhiletheirparentsareaway,[35]therebyindicatingtheevanescenceof
hisintention.HewantedtohavethechildrenssurnamechangedtoClavanoforthereasonthathewanted
to take them to the United States as it would be difficult for them to get a visa if their surname were
differentfromhis.[36]Tobesure,healsotestifiedthathewantedtosparethechildrenthestigmaofbeing
productsofabrokenhome.
Nevertheless,acloseanalysisofthetestimoniesofprivaterespondentRonald,hissisterAnnaMarie
and their brother Jose points to the inescapable conclusion that they just wanted to keep the children
awayfromtheirfather.Oneoftheoverridingconsiderationsfortheadoptionwasallegedlythestateof
Anna Maries health she was a victim of an almost fatal accident and suffers from a heart ailment.
However,sheherselfadmittedthatherhealthconditionwasnotthatseriousasshecouldstilltakecareof
thechildren.[37]Aneloquentevidenceofherabilitytophysicallycareforthemwasheremploymentat
the Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles [38] she could not have been employed if her health were
endangered. It is thus clear that the Clavanos attempt at depriving petitioner of parental authority
apparentlystemmedfromtheirnotionthathewasaninveteratewomanizer.AnnaMarieinfactexpressed
fearthatherchildrenwouldneverbeateasewiththewifeoftheirfather.[39]
Petitioner,whodescribedhimselfassingleinstatus,deniedbeingawomanizerandfathertothesons
ofWilmaSoco.[40]Astowhetherhewastellingthetruthisbesidethepoint.Philippinesociety,being
comparatively conservative and traditional, aside from being Catholic in orientation, it does not
countenancewomanizingonthepartofafamilyman,consideringthebanefuleffectssuchirresponsible
actvisitsonhisfamily.NeithermaytheCourtplaceapremiumontheinabilityofamantodistinguish
betweensiringchildrenandparentingthem.Nonetheless,theactualitythatpetitionercarriedonanaffair
withaparamourcannotbetakenassufficientbasisfortheconclusionthatpetitionerwasnecessarilyan
unfitfather.[41]Conventionalwisdomandcommonhumanexperienceshowthatabadhusbanddoesnot
necessarilymakeabadfather.Thatahusbandisnotexactlyanuprightmanisnot,strictlyspeaking,a
sufficientgroundtodeprivehimasafatherofhisinherentrighttoparentalauthorityoverthechildren.
[42]Petitionerhasdemonstratedhisloveandconcernforhischildrenwhenhetookthetroubleofsending
a telegram[43] to the lower court expressing his intention to oppose the adoption immediately after
learningaboutit.Hetraveledbacktothiscountrytoattendtothecaseandtotestifyabouthisloveforhis
childrenandhisdesiretounitehisfamilyoncemoreintheUnitedStates.[44]
Privaterespondentsthemselvesexplainedwhypetitionerfailedtoabidebytheagreementwithhis
wifeonthesupportofthechildren.PetitionerwasanillegalalienintheUnitedStates.Assuch,hecould
nothaveprocuredgainfulemployment.Privaterespondentsfailedtorefutepetitionerstestimonythathe
did not receive his share from the sale of the conjugal home,[45] pursuant to their
manifestation/compromiseagreementinthelegalseparationcase.Hence,itcanbereasonablypresumed
that the proceeds of the sale redounded to the benefit of his family, particularly his children. The
proceedsmaynothavelastedlongbutthereisampleevidencetoshowthatthereafter,petitionertriedto
abidebyhisagreementwithhiswifeandsenthisfamilymoney,nomatterhowmeager.
The liberality with which this Court treats matters leading to adoption insofar as it carries out the
beneficentpurposesofthelawtoensuretherightsandprivilegesoftheadoptedchildarisingtherefrom,
ever mindful that the paramount consideration is the overall benefit and interest of the adopted child,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

13/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

should be understood in its proper context and perspective. The Courts position should not be
misconstrued or misinterpreted as to extend to inferences beyond the contemplation of law and
jurisprudence.[46]The discretion to approve adoption proceedings is not to be anchored solely on best
interestsofthechildbutlikewise,withdueregardtothenaturalrightsoftheparentsoverthechild.[47]
In this regard, this Court notes private respondents reliance on the manifestation/compromise
agreementbetweenpetitionerandAnnaMariewhichbecamethebasisofthedecreeoflegalseparation.
Accordingtoprivaterespondentscounsel,[48]theauthoritygiventoAnnaMariebythatdecreetoenter
intocontractsasaresultofthelegalseparationwasallembracing[49]and,therefore,includedgivingher
sole consent to the adoption. This conclusion is however, anchored on the wrong premise that the
authority given to the innocent spouse to enter into contracts that obviously refer to their conjugal
properties, shall include entering into agreements leading to the adoption of the children. Such
conclusionisasdevoidofalegalbasisasprivaterespondentsapparentrelianceonthedecreeoflegal
separationfordoingawaywithpetitionersconsenttotheadoption.
ThetransferofcustodyoverthechildrentoAnnaMariebyvirtueofthedecreeoflegalseparation
didnot,ofnecessity,deprivepetitionerofparentalauthorityforthepurposeofplacingthechildrenupfor
adoption. Article 213 of the Family Code states: . . . in case of legal separation of parents, parental
authorityshallbeexercisedbytheparentdesignatedbythecourt.Inawarding custody, thecourtshall
takeintoaccountallrelevantconsiderations,especiallythechoiceofthechildoversevenyearsofage,
unlesstheparentchosenisunfit.
Itshouldbenoted,however,thatthelawonlyconfersontheinnocentspousetheexerciseofparental
authority. Having custody of the child, the innocent spouse shall implement the sum of parental rights
withrespecttohisrearingandcare.Theinnocentspouseshallhavetherighttothechildsservicesand
earnings, and the right to direct his activities and make decisions regarding his care and control,
education,healthandreligion.[50]
In a number of cases, this Court has considered parental authority, the joint exercise of which is
vestedbythelawupontheparents,[51]as
xxxamassofrightsandobligationswhichthelawgrantstoparentsforthepurposeofthechildrens
physicalpreservationanddevelopment,aswellasthecultivationoftheirintellectandtheeducationof
theirheartsandsenses.Asregardsparentalauthority,`thereisnopower,butatasknocomplexofrights,
butasumofdutiesnosovereigntybutasacredtrustforthewelfareoftheminor.
Parentalauthorityandresponsibilityareinalienableandmaynotbetransferredorrenouncedexceptin
casesauthorizedbylaw.Therightattachedtoparentalauthority,beingpurelypersonal,thelawallowsa
waiverofparentalauthorityonlyincasesofadoption,guardianshipandsurrendertoachildrenshomeor
anorphaninstitution.Whenaparententruststhecustodyofaminortoanother,suchasafriendor
godfather,eveninadocument,whatisgivenismerelytemporarycustodyanditdoesnotconstitutea
renunciationofparentalauthority.Evenifadefiniterenunciationismanifest,thelawstilldisallowsthe
same.
Thefatherandmother,beingthenaturalguardiansofunemancipatedchildren,aredutyboundand
entitledtokeepthemintheircustodyandcompany.[52](Italicssupplied)
As such, in instant case, petitioner may not be deemed as having been completely deprived of
parentalauthority,notwithstandingtheawardofcustodytoAnnaMarieinthelegalseparationcase.To
reiterate,thatawardwasarrivedatbythelowercourtonthebasisoftheagreementofthespouses.
Whileparentalauthoritymaybewaived,asinlawitmaybesubjecttoacompromise,[53]therewas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

14/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

no factual finding in the legal separation case that petitioner was such an irresponsible person that he
shouldbedeprivedofcustodyofhischildrenorthattherearegroundsunderthelawthatcoulddeprive
himofparentalauthority.Infact,inthelegalseparationcase,thecourtthereafterorderedthetransferof
custodyoverthechildrenfromAnnaMariebacktopetitioner.Theorderwasnotimplementedbecauseof
Anna Maries motion for reconsideration thereon.The Clavano family also vehemently objected to the
transferofcustodytothepetitioner,suchthatthelatterwasforcedtofileacontemptchargeagainstthem.
[54]

Thelawisclearthateitherparentmayloseparentalauthorityoverthechildonlyforavalidreason.
Nosuchreasonwasestablishedinthelegalseparationcase.Intheinstantcaseforadoption,theissueis
whetherornotpetitionerhadabandonedhischildrenastowarrantdispensationofhisconsenttotheir
adoption. Deprivation of parental authority is one of the effects of a decree of adoption.[55] But there
cannotbeavaliddecreeofadoptioninthiscasepreciselybecause,asthisCourthasdemonstratedearlier,
the finding of the courts below on the issue of petitioners abandonment of his family was based on a
misappreciationthatwastantamounttononappreciation,offactsonrecord.
AsregardsthedivorceobtainedintheUnitedStates,thisCourthasruledinTenchavezv.Escao[56]
thatadivorceobtainedbyFilipinocitizensaftertheeffectivityoftheCivilCodeisnotrecognizedinthis
jurisdictionasitiscontrarytoStatepolicy.WhilepetitionerisnowanAmericancitizen,asregardsAnna
MariewhohasapparentlyremainedaFilipinocitizen,thedivorcehasnolegaleffect.
ParentalauthorityisaconstitutionallyprotectedStatepolicyborneoutofestablishedcustomsand
traditionofourpeople.Thus,inSilvav.CourtofAppeals, [57]acaseinvolvingthevisitorialrightsofan
illegitimateparentoverhischild,theCourtexpressedtheopinionthat:
Parentshavethenaturalright,aswellasthemoralandlegalduty,tocarefortheirchildren,seetotheir
upbringingandsafeguardtheirbestinterestandwelfare.Thisauthorityandresponsibilitymaynotbe
undulydeniedtheparentsneithermayitberenouncedbythem.Evenwhentheparentsareestranged
andtheiraffectionforeachotherislost,theattachmentandfeelingfortheiroffspringsinvariablyremain
unchanged.Neitherthelawnorthecourtsallowthisaffinitytosufferabsent,ofcourse,anyreal,grave
andimminentthreattothewellbeingofthechild.
Since the incorporation of the law concerning adoption in the Civil Code, there has been a
pronounced trend to place emphasis in adoption proceedings, not so much on the need of childless
couplesforachild,asontheparamountinterestofachildwhoneedstheloveandcareofparents.After
thepassageoftheChildandYouthWelfareCodeandtheFamilyCode,thediscernibletrendhasimpelled
the enactment of Republic Act No. 8043 on Intercountry Adoption [58] and Republic Act No. 8552
establishingtherulesonthedomesticadoptionofFilipinochildren.[59]
Thecaseatbarappliestherelevantprovisionsoftheserecentlaws,suchasthefollowingpoliciesin
theDomesticAdoptionActof1998:
(a)Toensurethateverychildremainsunderthecareandcustodyofhis/herparent(s)andbe
providedwithlove,care,understandingandsecuritytowardsthefullandharmonious
developmentofhis/herpersonality.[60]
(b)Inallmattersrelatingtothecare,custodyandadoptionofachild,his/herinterestshallbethe
paramountconsiderationinaccordancewiththetenetssetforthintheUnitedNations(UN)
ConventionontheRightsoftheChild.[61]
(c)Topreventthechildfromunnecessaryseparationfromhis/herbiologicalparent(s).[62]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

15/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

Inasmuch as the Philippines is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, the government and its officials are duty bound to comply with its mandates. Of particular
relevancetoinstantcasearethefollowingprovisions:
StatesPartiesshallrespecttheresponsibilities,rightsanddutiesofparents...toprovide,inamanner
consistentwiththeevolvingcapacitiesofthechild,appropriatedirectionandguidanceintheexerciseby
thechildoftherightsrecognizedinthepresentConvention.[63]
StatesPartiesshallrespecttherightofthechildwhoisseparatedfromoneorbothparentstomaintain
personalrelationsanddirectcontactwithbothparentsonaregularbasis,exceptifitiscontrarytothe
childsbestinterests.[64]
AchildwhoseparentsresideindifferentStatesshallhavetherighttomaintainonaregularbasis,savein
exceptionalcircumstancespersonalrelationsanddirectcontactswithbothparents...[65]
StatesPartiesshallrespecttherightsanddutiesoftheparents...toprovidedirectiontothechildinthe
exerciseofhisorherrightinamannerconsistentwiththeevolvingcapacitiesofthechild.[66]
Underlying the policies and precepts in international conventions and the domestic statutes with
respect to children is the overriding principle that all actuations should be in the best interests of the
child.Thisisnot,however,tobeimplementedinderogationoftheprimaryrightoftheparentorparents
to exercise parental authority over him. The rights of parents visvis that of their children are not
antitheticaltoeachother,asinfact,theymustberespectedandharmonizedtothefullestextentpossible.
Keith,CharmaineandJosephAnthonyhaveallgrownup.KeithandCharmainearenowoflegalage
whileJosephAnthonyisapproachingeighteen,theageofmajority.Forsure,theyshallbeendowedwith
the discretion to lead lives independent of their parents. This is not to state that this case has been
rendered moot and academic, for their welfare and best interests regarding their adoption, must be
determinedasofthetimethatthepetitionforadoptionwasfiled.[67]Saidpetitionmustbedeniedasit
wasfiledwithouttherequiredconsentoftheirfatherwho,bylawandunderthefactsofthecaseatbar,
hasnotabandonedthem.
WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionforreviewoncertiorariisherebyGRANTED.Thequestioned
DecisionandResolutionoftheCourtofAppeals,aswellasthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
Cebu, are SET ASIDE thereby denying the petition for adoption of Keith, Charmaine and Joseph
Anthony,allsurnamedCang,bythespouserespondentsRonaldandMariaClaraClavano.ThisDecision
isimmediatelyexecutory.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,C.J.,(Chairman),Kapunan,andPurisima,JJ.,concur.
[1]PennedbyAssociateJusticeSerafinE.CamilonandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesCelsoL.MagsinoandArtemonD.
Luna.
[2]PresidedbyJudgeRenatoC.Dacudao.
[3]DocketedasCivilCaseNo.JD707.
[4]PresidedbyJudgeMauraC.Navarro.
[5]OriginalRecords,pp.3940.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

16/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

[6]Exh.H2.
[7]OriginalRecords,pp.57.
[8]RTCDecision,p.3.
[9]RTCDecision,pp.78.
[10]CADecision,pp.1617.PennedbyJusticeSerafinE.Camilon,CelsoL.MagsinoandArtemonD.Luna,JJ.,concurring.
[11]RecordofCAG.R.CVNo.27108,pp.4653.
[12]Republicv.CourtofAppealsandBobiles,G.R.No.92326,January24,1992,205SCRA356,362.
[13]AQUINO,CIVILCODE,Vol.I,1990ed.,p.299citingSantosv.Aranzanso,123Phil.160,167(1966).
[14]Republicv.CourtofAppealsandBobiles,supra,atp.365.
[15]Exh.A.
[16]Duncanv.CFIofRizal,L30576,February10,1976,69SCRA298Santosv.Aranzanso,supra.
[17]DelMundov.CourtofAppeals,322Phil.463,471(1996).
[18]Imperialv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.102037,July17,1996,259SCRA65,71.
[19] Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, L43972, July 24, 1990, 187 SCRA 735, 739 citing Ongsiako v.
IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.R.No.69901,July31,1987,152SCRA627.
[20]258SCRA651[1996].
[21]P.M.PasteraBrokeragev.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.113657,January20,1997,266SCRA365,371.
[22]DelaCruzv.DelaCruz,130Phil.324(1968).
[23]Duncanv.CFIofRizal,supraatp.304Santosv.Aranzanso,supraatp.168.
[24]DelaCruzv.DelaCruz,supra.
[25]Exhs.15to17.
[26]250SCRA82[1995].
[27]86Phil.554,559560(1950).
[28]312Phil.431(1995).
[29]Ibid.,atp.439.
[30]SeePerezv.CourtofAppeals,325Phil.1014,1020(1996).
[31]TSN,November17,1987,p.38.
[32]Ibid.,p.22.
[33]RTCDecision,pp.12.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

17/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

[34]TSN,February3,1988,p.13.
[35]TSN.November17,1987,p.24.
[36]Ibid.,pp.2829.
[37]TSN,January12,1988,p.10.
[38]Ibid.
[39]Ibid.,p.6.
[40]TSN,December8,1987,p.12.
[41]Silvav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.114742,July17,1997.
[42]Chuav.Cabangbang,137Phil.204(1969).
[43]Exh.18.
[44]TSN,December8,1987,pp.4748February11,1988,p.6.
[45]TSN,December8,1987,p.20.
[46]Republicv.Hernandez,323Phil.606(1996).
[47]Republicv.CourtofAppealsandBobiles,supra.
[48]Atty.RicardoPadilla.
[49]TSN,November17,1987,p.37.
[50]DissentingOpinionofJusticeFelixV.Makasiarin Lunav.IntermediateAppellateCourt(G.R.No.68374,June18,
1985,137SCRA7)citing59Am.Jur.2d107.
[51]Art.211,FamilyCode.
[52]SagalaEslaov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.116773,January16,1997,266SCRA317,322323citingSantos,Sr. v.
CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.113054,March16,1995,242SCRA407.
[53]TOLENTINO,CIVILCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Vol.V,1992ed.,p.491citing4Salvat383.
[54]TSN,February11,1988,pp.912.
[55]Cervantesv.Fajardo,G.R.No.79955,January27,1989,169SCRA575,579.
[56]122Phil.752(1965).
[57]Supra.
[58]ThelawwasapprovedonJune7,1995.
[59]ThelawwasapprovedonFebruary25,1998.
[60]Art.1,Sec.2(a),R.A.No.8552.
[61]Art.1,Sec.2(b),IbidadoptedbytheGeneralAssemblyoftheUnitedNationsonNovember20,1989andratifiedby
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

18/19

3/30/2016

CangvsCA:105308:September25,1998:J.Romero:ThirdDivision

thePhilippinesinJuly1990byvirtueofSenateResolutionNo.109.
[62]Art.1,Sec.2(c),ii,Ibid.
[63]Art.5,ConventionontheRightsoftheChild.
[64]Art.9,parag.3,Ibid.
[65]Art.10,parag.2,Ibid.
[66]Art.14,parag.2.Ibid.
[67]See:Espirituv.CourtofAppeals,supraatp.441.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/105308.htm

19/19