265 Cang v CA
Who may adopt; need for consent September 25, 1998 Romero
Summary: Herbert and Anna had 3 children. Later, a decree of their legal separation was granted and
custody of children was given to wife. Herbert left for the US, obtained a divorce decree against Anna,
and married another woman. Subsequently, the brother of Anna and his wife filed a petition to adopt the
3 children. Opposed by Herbert on the ground of his lack of consent. RTC and CA issued a decree of
adoption. SC reversed holding that as a GR, written consent of the natural parent to the adoption is a
requisite for its validity. The only exceptions are when the parent (1) abandoned the child, or (2) is
insane of hopelessly intemperate. None of these is present in this case.
FACTS
Herbert and Anna Marie were married and had 3 children (Keith, Charmaine, Joseph).
Anna subsequently filed a petition for legal separation against Herbert on the ground of adultery.
o LC granted Joint Manifestation of the spouses to live separately and for support of the
children P1,000 each monthly.
Herbert left for the US where he sought a divorce from Anna. This was granted and the sole custody
of the three minors were given to Anna.
Herbert married an American, became a naturalized American citizen, but later on divorced this wife.
Ronald and Maria, brother and sister-in-law of Anna, filed a special proceeding for the adoption of
the three children.
o Anna filed an affidavit of consent saying that her husband had evaded his legal obligation to
support his children and had long forfeited his parental rights over them.
Herbert filed an Opposition and moved to reacquire custody over his children. RTC Br. 19 granted
this motion.
Meanwhile, RTC Br. 14 issued a decree of adoption ruling that Herbert effectively abandoned his
children and that abandonment is a ground for dispensing with his consent to the adoption.
CA affirmed.
HERBERT: Petition for adoption was fatally defective because (1) he did not have a
written consent to the adoption and (b) he never abandoned his children.
RATIO
W/N Herbert abandoned his children and thus his written consent is not necessary for valid
adoption
NO. Petition fatally defective because it did not have the written consent of Herbert. Herbert did not
abandon his children; hence, lack of his consent to the adoption renders the same invalid.
GR: the written consent of the natural parent to the adoption is a requisite for its validity (FC 188, Sec 3
Rule 9). The only exceptions are when the parent (1) abandoned the child, or (2) is insane of hopelessly
intemperate.
The court may acquire jurisdiction over the case even without the written consent of the parents or one
of them provided that the petition for adoption alleges facts sufficient to warrant exemption from
compliance therewith. BUT, in cases where one of the parents opposes the adoption primarily because
his
consent thereto was not sought, the matter of whether he abandoned his child becomes a proper issue
for determination. The issue of abandonment by the oppositor natural parent is a preliminary issue that
an adoption court must confront. Only upon failure of the oppositor to prove to the satisfaction of the
court that he did not abandon his child may the petition for adoption be considered on the merits.
“Abandonment”- any conduct of the parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties
and relinquish all parental claims to the child; neglect or refusal to perform the natural and legal
obligations of care and support which parents owe their children. Herbert’s conduct did not manifest a
settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims over his children as to
constituted abandonment.
Physical estrangement alone, without financial and moral desertion is not tantamount to abandonment.
While Herbert was physically absent as he was then in the US, he was not remiss in his natural and legal
obligations of love, care and support for his children. He maintained regular communication with his
wife and children through letters and telephone. He also used to send packages by mail and catered to
their whims. He also presented certifications of banks in the US showing that even prior to the filing of
the petition for adoption, he had deposited amounts for the benefit of his children.
The lower courts emphasized the meagerness of the amounts he sent to his children and the facts that as
regards the deposits, these were “withdrawable by him alone”. Both courts attached a high premium to
the prospective adopters’ financial status but totally brushed aside the possible repercussion of the
adoption on the emotional and psychological well- being of the children. Parental authority cannot be
entrusted to a person simply because he could give the child a larger measure of material comfort than
his natural parent. There should be proof that he had so emotionally abandoned the, that his children
would not miss his guidance and counsel. The letters he received form his children prove that Herbert
maintained the more important emotional tie between him and his children. The children needed him
not only because he could cater to their whims but also because he was a person they could share with
their daily activities and problems.
