G.R. No.

105308, September 25, 1998 Case flow:

FACTS:
 Petitioner Herbert Cang and Anna Marie Clavano who were married on January 27, 1973, begot three children,
namely: Keith, Charmaine, and Joseph Anthony. During the early years of their marriage, the Cang couple's
relationship was undisturbed. Not long thereafter, however, Anna Marie learned of her husband's alleged
extramarital affair with Wilma Soco, a family friend of the Clavanos.
 Upon learning of her husband's alleged illicit liaison, Anna Marie filed a petition for legal separation with alimony
pendente lite with the then Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Cebu which rendered a decision approving
the joint manifestation of the Cang spouses providing that they agreed to "live separately and apart or from bed
and board." They further agreed: "(c) That the children of the parties shall be entitled to a monthly support of ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) effective from the date of the filing of the complaint. This shall constitute a first lien
on the net proceeds of the house and lot jointly owned by the parties situated at Cinco Village, Mandaue City; and
(d) That the plaintiff shall be entitled to enter into any contract or agreement with any person or persons, natural
or juridical without the written consent of the husband; or any undertaking or acts that ordinarily requires
husband's consent as the parties are by this agreement legally separated;"
 Petitioner then left for the United States where he sought a divorce from Anna Marie before the Second Judicial
District Court of the State of Nevada. Said court issued the divorce decree that also granted sole custody of the
three minor children to Anna Marie, reserving "rights of visitation at all reasonable times and places" to petitioner.
 Thereafter, petitioner took an American wife and thus became a naturalized American citizen. In 1986, he divorced
his American wife and never remarried.
 While in the United States, petitioner worked and remitted a portion of his monthly earnings to the Philippines for
his children's expenses and another, deposited in the bank in the name of his children.
 Meanwhile, on September 25, 1987, private respondents Ronald V. Clavano and Maria Clara Diago Clavano,
respectively the brother and sister-in-law of Anna Marie, filed Special Proceedings No. 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
14-year-old Keith signifying consent to his adoption. Anna Marie likewise filed an affidavit of consent alleging that
her husband had "evaded his legal obligation to support" his children; that her brothers and sisters including
Ronald V. Clavano, had been helping her in taking care of the children; that because she would be going to the
United States to attend to a family business, "leaving the children would be a problem and would naturally
hamper (her) job-seeking venture abroad;" and that her husband had "long forfeited his parental rights" over the
children for the following reasons: (1) The decision in Civil Case No. JD-707 allowed her to enter into any contract
without the written consent of her husband; (2) Her husband had left the Philippines to be an illegal alien in the
United States and had been transferring from one place to another to avoid detection by Immigration authorities,
and (3) Her husband had divorced her.
 Upon learning of the petition for adoption, petitioner immediately returned to the Philippines and filed an
opposition thereto, alleging that, although private respondents Ronald and Maria Clara Clavano were financially
capable of supporting the children while his finances were "too meager" compared to theirs, he could not "in
conscience, allow anybody to strip him of his parental authority over his beloved children."
 Pending resolution of the petition for adoption, petitioner moved to reacquire custody over his children alleging
that Anna Marie had transferred to the United States thereby leaving custody of their children to private
respondents. On January 11, 1988, the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 19, 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 deliver custody over the minors to petitioner.
 On March 27, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 14, issued a decree of adoption. In so ruling, the
lower court was "impelled" by these reasons: (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; and (5) The children themselves manifested their desire to be adopted by the
 Clavanos - Keith had testified and expressed the wish to be adopted by the Clavanos while the two younger ones
were observed by the court to have "snuggled" close to Ronald even though their natural mother was around.
 On the other hand, the lower court considered the opposition of petitioner to rest on "a very shaky foundation"
because of its findings that: (1) Petitioner was "morally unfit to be the father of his children" on account of his
being "an improvident father of his family" and an "undisguised Lothario." This conclusion is based on the
testimony of his alleged paramour, mother of his two sons and close friend of Anna Marie, Wilma Soco, who said
that she and petitioner lived as husband and wife in the very house of the Cangs in Opao, Mandaue City; (2) The
alleged deposits of around $10,000 that were of "comparatively recent dates" were "attempts at verisimilitude" as
these were joint deposits the authenticity of which could not be verified; (3) Contrary to petitioner's claim, the
possibility of his reconciliation with Anna Marie was "dim if not nil" because it was petitioner who "devised,
engineered and executed the divorce proceedings at the Nevada Washoe County court."; and (4) By his
naturalization as a U.S. citizen, petitioner "is now an alien from the standpoint of Philippine laws" and therefore,
how his "new attachments and loyalties would sit with his (Filipino) children is an open question."
 Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner contended that the lower court erred in holding that it would be in the
best interest of the three children if they were adopted by private respondents Ronald and Maria Clara Clavano.
He asserted that the petition for adoption was fatally defective and tailored to divest him of parental authority
because: (a) he did not have a written consent to the adoption; (b) he never abandoned his children; (c) Keith and
Charmaine did not properly give their written consent; and (d) the petitioners for adoption did not present as
witness the representative of the Department of Social Welfare and Development who made the case study report
required by law.
 The Court of Appeals affirmed the decree of adoption concluding that petitioner had not really been performing
his duties as a father, contrary to his protestations.
 Petitioner moved to reconsider the decision of the Court of Appeals. He emphasized that the decree of legal
separation was not based on the merits of the case as it was based on a manifestation amounting to a
compromise agreement between him and Anna Marie. That he and his wife agreed upon the plan for 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 petitioner's parents. Moreover, he alone did not instigate the divorce proceedings as he and his wife initiated
the "joint complaint" for divorce. Petitioner also argued that the finding that he was not fit to rear and care for his
children was belied by the award to him of custody over the children in Civil Case No. JD-707.
 His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner is now before this Court, alleging that the petition
for adoption was fatally defective as it did not have his written consent as a natural father as required by Article 31
(2) of Presidential Decree No. 603, the Child and Youth Welfare Code, and Article 188 (2) of the Family Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has so abandoned his children, thereby making his consent to the adoption
unnecessary.

HELD:
No. The finding of the courts below on the issue of petitioner's abandonment of his family was based on a
misappreciation that was tantamount to non-appreciation, of facts on record.
In reference to abandonment of a child by his parent, the act of abandonment imports "any conduct of the
parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child."
It means "neglect or refusal to perform the natural and legal obligations of care and support which parents owe
their children."
In the instant case, records disclose that petitioner's conduct did not manifest a settled purpose to forego all
parental duties and relinquish all parental claims over his children as to constitute abandonment. Physical
estrangement alone, without financial and moral desertion, is not tantamount to abandonment. While admittedly,
petitioner was physically absent as he was then in the United States, 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 used to send packages by mail and catered to their whims. Petitioner's
testimony on the matter is supported by documentary evidence consisting of the following handwritten letters to
him of both his wife and children.
Indeed, it would be against the spirit of the law if financial consideration were to be the paramount
consideration in deciding whether to deprive a person of parental authority over his children. There should be a
holistic approach to the matter, taking into account the physical, emotional, psychological, mental, social and
spiritual needs of the child. The conclusion of the courts below that petitioner abandoned his family needs more
evidentiary support other than his inability to provide them the material comfort that his admittedly affluent in-
laws 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 given to adopting parents. The letters he received from his children
prove that petitioner 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, problems and triumphs.
Parental authority is a constitutionally protected State policy borne out of established customs and tradition of
our people. Thus, in Silva v. Court of Appeals, the Court expressed the opinion that: "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."
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. This is not,
however, to be implemented in derogation of the primary right of the parent or parents to exercise parental
authority over him. The rights of parents vis-à-vis that of their children are not antithetical to each other, as in fact,
they must be respected and harmonized to the fullest extent possible.