Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

G.R. No.

L-1155 June 30, 1947


SORIA Daz, recurrente-apelante,
vs.
SERVANDO ESTRERA and SOLEDAD DE LOS SANTOS, recurridosapelados.
D. Manuel a.. Zosa and D. Robustiano D. Dejaresco on behalf of the appellant
and the appellant.
D. Hipolito Alo on behalf of the Challenger and respondents.
BRIONES, J.:
The appellant, Soria Daz, has lodged the present appeal that is issued a writ
of habeas corpus
"sequencing the Challenger Servando Estrera and loneliness of Saints
(husbands) will deliver the girl's body"
Dulcisima Diaz,"two and a half years old, ahorase is held by Challenger said.
There is no dispute
the following facts: that the recurrent served as maid at home of the
Challenger spouses; What
Servando Estrera had intercourse with her maid, and as a result this gave
birth to the girl Dulcisima January 19
1944; that the appellant continued serving at home of the Challenger until the
beginning of August, 1946, in which
pormotivos that do not appear clearly in car it came out of such House retiring
to his people and taking
Wing girl can I get.
There are conflict of allegations about how he returned the girl to the power of
the Challenger. According to the application, these are
they made use of the force, with the help of some members of the military
police stationed in the village of
Dumanjug, Cebu province. The Challenger denied, in your reply, this

imputation, and allege that the girl them


It was returned with the consent of the appellant.
According to the minutes of the meeting on September 30, 1946, signed by a
delegate of the Juzgado of first scribe
Instance of Cebu, was not celebrated any view on request. "Not hearing" says the Act - "was had in the
above-entitled case; only oral arguments presented by both parties. The court
gave Attorney Alo (lawyer of the)
challenged) time to petition for the legal adoption of the child by the
respondents by virtue of the manifestations of
Attorney Zosa"(lawyer of the appellant). (Minutes of the meeting on
September 30, 1946, signed by the interpreter)
and notary delegate Simoun V. Canton, folio 45, exp. of the Court.) This, on
the one hand.
On the other hand, in the brief transcript of notes taken about procedures
incurred taquigraficas in
the referred session of 30 September, consists the following:
Mr. particularly:
We are willing to refer the matter for the decision of the Honourable Court
writings already
presented with that fellow Alo admit that the girl Dulcisima Diaz is adulterina
daughter of the
resorted Servando Estrera.
xxxxxxxxx
. . . If partner supports these facts, we will someterya the matter with the
already-submitted writings.
Mr. Alo:
We admit.
xxxxxxxxx

Court:
Is the mother of the girl single?

Mr. particularly:
She was unmarried when conceived and gave birth to the girl.
Court:
Containment now of the petitioner is while in the trachea it comes is a natural
daughter, in what
concerning the appealed Servando Estrera is adulterina daughter.
Court:
You submit the matter for the decision of the Court convista of the writings of
both sides now
presented before the Court?
Mr. Alo:
We are satisfied to refer the matter in accordance with the allegations and
submit this document
signed by the applicant for consideration by the Court, with its corresponding
translation (the
italics are ours).
Mr. particularly:
We then ask permission to submit a memorandum of authorities to hold ours
in ten days
containment.
Court:
Do you expect the Court to decide the matter without presentation of
memorandum or going to submit?
memorandum?
Mr. Alo:
I'm going to introduce jurisprudence.
Mr. particularly:
It is not because we would like to sacrifice the future of the girl because there
are technicalities that we favor,

But if the Challenger love the girl, we suggest to adopt to the girl and
frompanzani give the
custody of the little girl (the italics are ours).
Mr. Alo:
Well, such as this proposition, accept (t. n. t., pp. 1, 2, 3 and 4, pages 46, 47,
48 and 49, exp. of the)
Court).
And here ends the transcription of the notes taquigraficas.
For it is not known that grounds the appellant not presto consent to the
adoption; so this failure, and the judge
Macadaeg there was after issuing statement desestimandola application for
habeas corpus and the following,
namely:
In view of the foregoing, the Court believes and so holds that the custody of
the minor Dulcisima should
remain with the respondents in this case. The petition therefore is hereby
dismissed without special
pronouncement as to costs.
The decision of this Court should not be interpreted to mean that the petitioner
is deprived from herein
visiting her child. Respondents are hereby warned that they should not
unreasonably refuse the petitioner to
visit her.
Judgment dictated so this appeal has been lodged.
102, section 1, rules of court, rule reads as follows:
SECTION 1. To what habeas corpus extends. -Except as otherwise expressly
provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention by which any person is deprived
of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from
the person entitled thereto.

Having the parties submitted this matter to the Court of first instance for its
decision with vista so solode the

writings of allegations, without prior contradictory dejuicio celebration,


obviously that they can only be in
consideration not discussed both allegations parts, discarding course the
expressly disclaimed
and redarguidas, because to prosecute these last there need to be submitted
to test, and we have already seen
in the transcription of the notes taquigraficas be in the presentecaso joint test
was dispensed
by manifesto agreement of the parties. Therefore, the allegation expuestaen
the solicotud of habeas corpus that the
"on August 11, 1946, in the municipality of Dumanjug, Cebu, his girl,
Dulcisima, was sacasa's she (the appellant)
using force, without sun consent and without right or authority, by Servando
Estrera and loneliness of the Saints,
with the support, cooperation and direct participation of several members of
the military police,"cannot be taken
found, because that claim has been denied categorically in the contestation of
the Challenger, who
They assert positively that "did not take out the power of the applicant the
Dulcisima girl by force, but"
with the consent of the applicant." (Reply of the Challenger, folio 20, exp. of
court.)
On the other hand, work on cars a document that is crucial to the resolution of
this asuntodocumento
that rightly had in mind by the Court a quo to the judgement in favour of the
Challenger. The document, drafted in the bisaya-cebuano dialect, was signed
and granted by Soria Bernardo
Diaz, the appellant, on February 20, 1944, witnessing instrumental Geronimo
Castaeda and Arcadio

Mendoza. Not seniega its authenticity. Here is his translation to the Spanish:
To whom concerns:
I do note that I, Soria Bernardo Daz, filipina, adult and neighbor of the town of
Badian, Cebu,
I give my daughter Dulcisima who was born in the home of Lord and Lady of
Servando B. Estrera husbands,
the village of Mandaue, Cebu, due to its large love my daughter and as
correspondence to their
concerns and expenses on the occasion of my birth I've offered to them
without any avacilacion or desire to have
the aforementioned girl.
I do understand that when firm this document has ceased miautoridad about
my daughter and if in the days
future attempts to intervene, claiming the girl and c, I could be acusadaante
the courts of the
village so I punish for breach, that I committed this contract that I signed.
I signed this on this day 20 of February of the year 1944 in presenciade
witnesses signing below.
(Fda.) Bernardo Diaz Soria
The girl's mother
(Fdo). Geronimo Castaeda
Witness
(Fdo). Arcadio Mendoza
Witness
One of the mistakes that lawyers of the recurentes enalan in his plea refers to
this document of resignation
-because, in fact, so should be considered: waive custody or parental
authority. Is excepcionan against the
action of the Court a quo to take it into account as one of the foundations of

his sentence. They say thatthe same


not formally presented as proof and poreso not is not identified as exhibito
marked or annex. More
still: they assert with any formalities that they had no opportunity to make
objection against its admission. The
brief transcript notes taquigraficas that we have striven to play above, denies
this
assertion. The Challenger Alo Mr. lawyer submitted the document to the Court
in full session saying the
Next:
Mr. Alo:
We are satisfied to refer the matter in accordance with the allegations and
submit this document

signed by the applicant for the consideration of the Court with their
corresponding translation. (T. n. t.,)
p. 3, folio 48, the court record.)
This shows palpably to the lawyer Mr. Alotenia in his hands the document; that
the Court as teniaante
Yes; and that Mr. Zosa, counsel for the appellant, also had front and could
have examined, and is depresumir
that I look at it. Not only Mr. Zosa not objectA presentation and acceptance of
the document, but absolute queguardo
silence on it. More still: alfinal manifestations suggested that the Challenger
take legally to
the girl, "... and will arenunciar the custody of the girl," conclude by saying (t.
n. t., p. 4, folio 49, exp. of the)
Court). Front Athis attitude of the appellant, for clear and positive search

lawyer that the Court


take in referral cuentael document to your sentence if you would like the Court
had not feel authorized
to consider such attitude in his face and its value (face value), without
imagining that it had to petada in
She reservamental? Do not entitled perhaps courts arest in the sincerity of the
attorneys
You auxilianen the very noble, very high task to administer justice? Since then
that the procedures
judicial hearings, provide wide opportunity for the deployment of the ability and
talent; but the
lawyers never should forget that candor and that sincerity that hacenque
above all skills
enhance and truth and justice in the triumphant bellezade prevail its attributes.
The lawyers of the appellant not only not objected wing presentation and
acceptance of the document when the
abogadode the challenger as submitted in open court that consider it the
Court a quo, but that, after already
dedictada the sentence, nor caught the attention of the Court, by a motion of
reconsideration, to
their alleged error. So for the first time is planteanen this instance the objection
and exception. Less than
It can be said is that the approach is too late.
The question, therefore, now boils down to determinary resolve if, with the
resignation of which document view
made merit, the appellant is entitled to recover legal custody to him lay on his
daughter naturalantes of the
granting of this document - custody quepas to the Challenger after awarded
the same. I como

We resolve this issue depends on the outcome of the application for habeas
corpus. If, despite this document, the the
you are entitled to recover waived parental, the command should be issued;
otherwise, not.
Parental authority is waivable. There is nothing in our laws and in our case law
prohibiting not only
that waiver, but a law of the Philippine legislature, the law No. 3094,
promulgated on March 16, 1923, the
It allows and expressly authorize. Article 1 this law provides:
ARTICLE 1. Every institution publishes or any charitable beneficao,
incorporated in accordance with society
the laws of the Philippines and duly authorized for this purpose by the
Secretary of the Interior by means
of the Commissioner of public welfare, tengapor object to receive, shelter,
care, place for your
adoption and adoption consentiren, or improve the situation of homeless
orphans,
abandoned or mistreated, whose teachings are not contrary to Christian
principles of morality,
will be empowered to receive, exercise authority, teach, educate, protect, care
for, arrange and place for the
adoption and indulge in adopting any less than eighteen years of age, when
the father and
mother, or the person or persons who legally have the right act as tutors of
such minor
to deliver this, by letter, to the care and custody of such an institution or
society, and after decho
This person of the above-mentioned child will be under the legal custody of
the institution or society for the purposes

expressed enesta law:...


Article 2 of the same Act reads:
ARTICLE 2. Once a child has been delivered, according to what is available in
the article above, and
been accepted by that institution or society, the rights of natural parents, of the
guardian of your
person, if any, or other responsible for their custody caducaran, and such
institution or society while
protected planned authorization in the first article of this Act tendrael right to
custody and the
authority over this child durantesu age, and is authorized to take care of you,
educate you, ensenarley
to place temporarily or for adoption in appropriate unhogar, and to consent to
adoption
in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, and fashion that creates better
suitable for your well-being.
(The italics are ours.)

And the article 3 prescribes:


ARTICLE 3. Illegal will be any less so delivered or entrusted to leave, without
reasonable cause, to the
person, institution, or society, and to anyone inducing or attempting to induce
a minor here allow
to the person, institution or society having the care, custody or guardianship of
the child, under the
provisions of this law. Any infringement of this article shall be punished with
prisionque do not exceed of a
year, or spiked fine not exceeding fingers thousand dollars, or both penalties,

at the discretion of the Court:


. . ..
The appellant lawyers argue that the No.3094 law authorizes only the
resignation for cases of adoption, and
the present case is not, as it is not spoken of adoption in the document in
question, and besides the appellant of
any way consent to her daughter to be adopted by the Challenger. The
argument is clearly wrong. Of the
the law, transcribed above, same wording is clear that arrange parala adopt
the child is
nothing more than the institution benefit referred to in the Act, one of the
finesde siendolos other purposes "receiving,
protect, train, educate, help,... take care of any child under the age of 18,
when the father and mother or the
person or persons legally qualified to act as guardians of the referred child
delivered, in writing,
to the dedicha care institution or society, and the person of the child estaraen
later in the legal custody of such
instituciono society for the purposes expressed here." And note, in addition,
categorically says the law, namely:
desdeel delivery to the institution, the rights... about the child's natural parents
caducaran,
and the institution or company will have full authority and right to nurture,
educate, train you and make arrangements
for adoption by any responsible person and good reputation, and can legally
supplement to the padreso
the guardian on the consent to adoption. It is more: the law provides certain
penalties for minor or person Quel
induced to leave no reasonable reason to the individual or institutional whose

care has been assigned from


accordance with this law.
In the case of Sanchez's Strong against Beishir (53 Jur. Fil., 353, August 15,
1929) is try to question the
validity of the waiver of the parental authority under the terms of the law No.
3094. This Court held the validezy
legitimacy of the resignation.
Now well; If parental authority and custody rights in a minor may give up
validamentea please
an institution, according to the law and jurisprudence cited would by that the
unmarried mother of a girl habidacon a?
married man cannot resign from the custodiaque, of course by law to compete
you primarily, in favor of the
father, especially if, as in the present case, the female legitimizes the
adulterous father lends its asset
consent to stay and upbringing of the child in the home? Is perhaps that the
father, even it is?
adulterous, has less right than an impersonal institution, in existence only
legal, to exercise the
privileges of nature? By the father not hade feed, raise and educate their
adulterous child, and?
have it in his house for this purpose, especially when it does not cause any
disturbance in the feelings and
do stateof the family legitimate?
However, it argues that no law that expressly authorize the waiver of parental
authority in favour there is
the adulterous father. But is there any law prohibiting it? Not only there, but we
have certain precepts
legal of which can infer the legitimacy of this revocation permissibility. We

have, first of all, the article


143 of the Civil Code that, among other things, provides as follows:
xxxxxxxxx
Parents and ilegitimos children in whom attends not the natural children
stopped, it must, by reason
food, the necessary aid for subsistence. Parents are also obliged to pay to the
children elementary instruction and the ensenanzade a profession, trade or
profession.
And the article 149 of the same Civil Code to preceptua.
The forced to pay food may, at its option, meet them, or paying the pension
that is set, or
receiving and keeping his own House to which she is entitled to them.
In the case of Ortiz against del Villar (57 Jur. Fil., 21 August 1, 1932) have
declared the following:

. . . He appealed, although adulterous father, having imposed obligations to


the law in favour of these
minor, as the feed them and afford your instruction to some extent, even for
the
compliance with these obligations, has, to scarcity other right title better better,
that the applicant for
have his power to such minor.
It argues that in this case the requesting legal custody was only an aunt of the
children, while queen the
issue that concerns us is the mother that--it is said conenfasis - is obviously
right that the father

adulterous. The answer to this is that any better right that would have the
appellant as
natural mother of the minor Dulcisima, expired when I waive it under the
document that
tantasveces has made merit.
The only question that remains now to determine and resolve is whether the
appellant can return on its agreements in
why reasonable, i.e. If it can rescind the relinquishment document by its sole
and exclusive desire, because if,
because it gives you real want do it, without claim or proof that the father
appealed against or the Challenger have
incurred in any action or omission that disable them to continue exercising on
the girl child Dulcisima rights
of custody. The resolution of this question must necessarily be against the
claims of the
recurrent. She could only regain custody relinquishment dasi resorted father
ceased to comply with the deberesque
You incumbre, that is, feed, breed and educated the girl as it should; but we
have already seen that no there is
allegation or proof to this effect. On the contrary, consists in cars that the tours
are much better
conditions that the applicant to provide to not do a comfort.
The argument that the document in question is null for lack of cause or
consideration is clearly futile. Not
a material consideration should seek for themselves the appellant lawyers say
that the body of the
Dulcisima this girl out of trade in men. Not be a sale or Exchange. The
consideration here is the welfare of the child. In the asuntode Slade Perkins
against Perkins (57 Jur. Fil., 227,

Septiembre12, 1932) have declared that "less ofa welfare is normally the
predominant consideration"
on the question of their custody." Natural and sentiments of the paternity or
maternity, by respectable
which are tien in that yield to the paramount consideration. And not relax the
rule just fundamentally try to children
code. It is true that in a fairly remote pasadoya these unhappy not gozabande
any right: such
It was the disgust that the sociedadsentia against them. But undoubtedly,
albeit slowly, their condition has
improved and humanizandose firmly in the social concept. From the seven
games that almost no them
granted nothing until the Civil Code queles recognized rights that now have,
the advance condition desu has
been significant. And is equally no doubt that the social tendency in all
civilized and cultured countries is to
increasingly less oppressive, more liberal and more human towards these
beings des fortunate that, being born into the world
without any fault on his part, and enough misfortune in accordance with the
mass of prejudice that social einhibiciones
they weigh upon them.
Merits of the above, confirm the judgement appealed no pronouncement as to
the coasts.
So is ordered.
Moran, Pres., Paras, fair, Pablo, perfect, Bengzon, Hontiveros, y Tuason, mm.,
are compliant.