Professional Documents
Culture Documents
7.2 Cang Vs CA
7.2 Cang Vs CA
*
G.R. No. 105308. September 25, 1998.
Same; Same; Article 256 of the Family Code provides for its
retroactivity “insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or
ac-
_____________
* THIRD DIVISION.
129
130
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
131
132
the lower courts if it finds that these do not conform to the evidence
on record.—As a rule, factual findings of the lower courts are final
and binding upon this Court. This Court is not expected nor
required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary
evidence submitted by the parties. However, although this Court
is not a trier of facts, it has the authority to review and reverse
the factual findings of the lower courts if it finds that these do not
conform to the evidence on record.
133
ROMERO, J.:
___________
134
__________
6 Exh. H-2.
7 Original Records, pp. 5-7.
8 RTC Decision, p. 3.
135
(1) Confer upon the adopted children the same rights and
duties as though they were in fact the legitimate children
of the petitioners;
(2) Dissolve the authority vested in the parents by nature, of
the children; and,
(3) Vest the same authority in the petitioners.
(1) The Cang children had, since birth, developed “close filial
ties with the Clavano family, especially their maternal
uncle,” petitioner Ronald Clavano.
(2) Ronald and Maria Clara Clavano were childless and, with
their printing press, real estate business, export business
and gasoline station and mini-mart in Rosemead,
California, U.S.A., had substantial assets and income.
(3) The natural mother of the children, Anna Marie,
nicknamed “Menchu,” approved of the adoption because of
her heart ailment, near-fatal accident in 1981, and the
fact that she could not provide them a secure and happy
future as she “travels a lot.”
(4) The Clavanos could provide the children moral and
spiritual direction as they would go to church together and
had sent the children to Catholic schools.
(5) The children themselves manifested their desire to be
adopted by the Clavanos—Keith had testified and
expressed the
137
138
160, citing R.C.L.; Stearns v. Allen, 183 Mass. 404, 67 N.E. 349;
97 Am. St. Rep. 441; Wilson v. Otis, 71 N.H. 483, 53 A. 439, 93
Am. St. Rep. 564; Nugent v. Powell,
9
4 Wyo. 173, 33 P. 23, 20
L.R.A. 199, 62 Am. St. Rep. 17.)”
___________
139
____________
140
___________
141
___________
142
143
sons; but if the child is illegitimate and has not been recognized,
the consent of its father to the adoption shall not be required.”
(Italics supplied)
___________
13 AQUINO, CIVIL CODE, Vol. I, 1990 ed., p. 299 citing Santos v. Aranzanso,
123 Phil. 160, 167 (1966).
14 Republic v. Court of Appeals and Bobiles, supra, at p. 365.
144
____________
15 Exh. A.
16 Duncan v. CFI of Rizal, L-30576, February 10, 1976, 69 SCRA 298;
Santos v. Aranzanso, supra.
17 Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals, 322 Phil. 463, 471 (1996).
18 Imperial v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102037, July 17, 1996, 259
SCRA 65, 71.
145
___________
146
___________
147
148
“Dear Herbert,
Hi, how was Christmas and New Year? Hope you
had a wonderful one.
By the way thanks for the shoes, it was a nice one.
It’s nice to be thought of at X’mas. Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Menchu”
149
150
151
VOL. 296, SEPTEMBER 25, 1998 151
Cang vs. Court of Appeals
__________
25 Exhs. 15 to 17.
152
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cang vs. Court of Appeals
____________
153
VOL. 296, SEPTEMBER 25, 1998 153
Cang vs. Court of Appeals
28
In Espiritu v. Court of Appeals, 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, in awarding
custody of the child to the father, the Court said:
____________
154
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cang vs. Court of Appeals
__________
155
VOL. 296, SEPTEMBER 25, 1998 155
Cang vs. Court of Appeals
private respondent
34
Maria Clara, is an international flight
stewardess. Moreover, private respondent Ronald claimed
that he could
35
“take care of the children while their parents
are away,” thereby indicating the evanescence of his
intention. He wanted to have the children’s surname
changed to Clavano for the reason that he wanted to take
them to the United States as it would be difficult for them
36
to get a visa if their surname were different from his. To
be sure, he also testified that he wanted to spare the
children the stigma of being products of a broken home.
Nevertheless, a close analysis of the testimonies of
private respondent Ronald, his sister Anna Marie and their
brother Jose points to the inescapable conclusion that they
just wanted to keep the children away from their father.
One of the overriding considerations for the adoption was
allegedly the state of Anna Marie’s health—she was a
victim of an almost fatal accident and suffers from a heart
ailment. However, she herself admitted that her health
condition was37not that serious as she could still take care of
the children. An eloquent evidence of her ability to
physically care for them was her38 employment at the
Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles —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 apparently stemmed from their notion
that he was an inveterate womanizer. Anna Marie in fact
expressed fear that her children39
would “never be at ease
with the wife of their father.”
Petitioner, who described himself as single in status,
denied
40
being a womanizer and father to the sons of Wilma
Soco. As to whether he was telling the truth is beside the
_________
156
___________
157
___________
158
__________
159
__________
160
“Parents have the natural right, as well as the moral and legal
duty, to care for their children, see to their upbringing and
safeguard their best interest and welfare. This authority and
responsibility may not be unduly denied the parents; neither may
it be renounced by them. Even when the parents are estranged
and their affection for each other is lost, the attachment and
feeling for their offsprings invariably remain unchanged. Neither
the law nor the courts allow this affinity to suffer absent, of
course, any real, grave and imminent threat to the well-being of
the child.”
___________
55 Cervantes v. Fajardo, G.R. No. 79955, January 27, 1989, 169 SCRA
575, 579.
56 122 Phil. 752 (1965).
57 Supra.
161
(a) To ensure that every child remains under the care and
custody of his/her parent(s) and be provided with love,
care, understanding and security towards the 60
full and
harmonious development of his/her personality.
(b) In all matters relating to the care, custody and adoption of
a child, his/her interest shall be the paramount
consideration in accordance with the tenets set forth in
the United
61
Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the
Child.
(c) To prevent the child from62 unnecessary separation from
his/her biological parent(s).
___________
162
__________
163
——o0o——