Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Chua v.

Cabangbang
G.R.No. L-23253 ll Mar. 28, 1969 ll Castro, J.
321 332
Dilag
Persons and Family Relations

FACTS:

Petitioner, when she was still at the prime of youth, worked as a hostess in nightclubs. She slept with
different men, but she gotpregnant with 2 children from a certain SySia Lay and 1 daughter with Victor
TanVillareal. She gave her youngest daughter to acomadre in Cebu.

The custody of the other daughter, Betty,was acquired by Mr. and Mrs. Cabangbang during the formers
early years (4 months old)- They christened her Grace Cabangbang

Petitioner now wants to get custody of Betty- She contends that Villareal took the child away and gave
her to the couple- The couple avers that they found the baby, wrapped in a bundle, at the gate of their
residence.

ISSUE:
WON the custody of the child can be granted back to the mother

HELD:

NO
petitioner abandoned the child, thus she has lost her parental authority over the child
RATIO:

CFI ruled that the mother was unfit to have parental authority, as she is not an upright woman.-

But SC ruled that it was more of an abandonment rather than fitness that divests the mother with parental
authority Art. 332 of the Civil Code The courts may deprive the parents of their parental authority or
suspend the exercise of the same if they should treat their children with excessive harshness or should
give them corrupting orders, counsels or examples, or should make them beg or abandon them.

Therefore, abandonment is one of the grounds for depriving authority over the parent-

Mere acquiescence to the giving by Villareal to the spouses is not sufficient to constitute abandonment-

But since she waited for a period of 5years before she filed the petition for custody, it is more believable
that she did abandon the child-

More proof that she doesnt really love


the child-

She admitted under oath that she wants the child back so that Sy SiaLay, the alleged father, would resume
providing the petitioner and the child support which he peremptorily withheld and ceased to give when
she gave the child away-
Also, she expressed her willingness to drop the case if the spouses paid her in cash and a jeep-

Not to mention that she gave her other child to a comadre in Cebu because she couldnt support her

DOCTRINE:

Art. 332 of the Civil Code provides, inter alia:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The courts may deprive the parents of their authority or suspend the exercise of the same if they should
treat their children with excessive harshness or should give them corrupting orders, counsels, or
examples, or should make them beg or abandon them." (Emphasis supplied)

Abandonment is therefore one of the grounds for depriving parents of parental authority over their
children.