G.R. No. 105308 September 25, 1998
HERBERT CANG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses RONALD V. CLAVANO and MARIA CLARA CLAVANO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Herbert Cang and Anna Marie Clavano were married and had three children: Keith, Charmaine, and Joseph Anthony. Their relationship deteriorated due to Herbert’s alleged extramarital affair. Anna Marie filed a petition for legal separation, resulting in a decision where the spouses agreed to live separately, with Herbert obligated to provide monthly support. Herbert later went to the United States, obtained a divorce from Anna Marie in a Nevada court (which granted Anna Marie sole custody with visitation rights for Herbert), and became a naturalized American citizen. He claimed to have worked and sent remittances for his children’s support. On September 25, 1987, respondents Spouses Ronald V. Clavano (Anna Marie’s brother) and Maria Clara Diago Clavano filed a petition for adoption of the three minor Cang children. The petition included the consent of then 14-year-old Keith and an affidavit from Anna Marie alleging Herbert had evaded his support obligation, forfeited his parental rights, and that the adoption was necessary as she planned to go abroad. Herbert opposed the petition, asserting his parental authority and financial support. The Regional Trial Court granted the decree of adoption, finding Herbert had abandoned his children and that adoption was in the children’s best interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Can minor children be legally adopted without the written consent of their natural father on the ground of abandonment?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The petition for adoption was fatally defective due to the lack of Herbert Cang’s written consent. The Court found that the petitioner did not abandon his children. Abandonment requires a clear intent to sever parental ties and relinquish all parental claims, which was not proven. Herbert’s actions—sending financial support, maintaining bank accounts for the children, and opposing the adoption—demonstrated a continued claim to his children. His failure to comply exactly with court-ordered support, while a ground for contempt, did not per se constitute abandonment for adoption purposes. The divorce decree obtained abroad could not alter the children’s legitimacy or automatically terminate parental authority under Philippine law. The best interest of the child, while paramount, cannot be used to justify adoption without complying with the essential requirement of parental consent, absent a clear case of abandonment. The decree of adoption was set aside.