Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > August 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 30366 August 15, 1929 - SOCORRO SANCHEZ DE STRONG v. WILLIAM BEISHIR

053 Phil 331:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 30366. August 15, 1929.]

SOCORRO SANCHEZ DE STRONG, Petitioner-Appellee, v. WILLIAM BEISHIR, Respondent-Appellant.

J. F. Boomer for Appellant.

Aguilar & Fernandez Lavadia and Feria & La O for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. "PATRIA POTESTAS" ; CARE AND CUSTODY OF MINORS; RENUNCIATION. — Both the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure in dealing with cases of adoption, and Act No. 3094 itself, authorize the renunciation of the patria potestas and the rights to the care and custody of minors, such renunciation being the basis for the purposes of said laws.


D E C I S I O N


AVANCEÑA, C.J. :


This application for habeas corpus in favor of Rose and Emma Strong, 11 and 10 years old, respectively, was filed by Socorro Sanchez de Strong, their mother, against William Beishir.

On January 29, 1928, the applicant subscribed a document (Exhibit 1), in favor of the American Guardian Association, a charitable institution organized in accordance with Act No. 3094, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Feeling that the welfare of the said children will be promoted by placing them under the guardianship of the American Guardian Association, I do hereby voluntarily and unconditionally surrender them to the care and custody of the American Guardian Association in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3094 of the Philippine Legislature, and I pledge not to interfere with the custody or management of said children in any way, or encourage or allow any one else to do so, and I hereby expressly authorize and empower the American Guardian Association to consent to the adoption of said children, in the same manner and without notice to me as if I personally gave such consent at time of adoption."cralaw virtua1aw library

The applicant alleges that she signed this document not only without being aware of its contents but after being misinformed of the same. But the evidence does not sustain this allegation. Both the notary public who certified it and the subscribing witnesses asserted that the document was read to the applicant before she signed it, and that she was correctly informed of its contents.

On July 12, 1928, the board of directors of the American Guardian Association adopted the following resolution in regard to these two minors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Resolved that the circumstances in the case of Rose and Emma Strong, legal wards of the American Guardian Association, are such as to justify recommendation on the part of this Board of Directors that they be turned over to Mr. and Mrs. W. Beishir for purposes of legal adoption, it being the belief of this Board that Mr. and Mrs. Beishir are most desirable people to have the future care of these little girls in their hands."cralaw virtua1aw library

Subsequently, Mr. and Mrs. Beishir applied to the proper court for the adoption of these minors and the application is now pending.

In accordance with the facts stated, and with Act No. 3094, the American Guardian Association legally assumed the care and custody of these minors, who are at present under the legal care and custody of the respondent, having been provisionally placed in his power for their adoption.

By virtue of instrument Exhibit 1, the applicant’s rights as natural mother of the minors ceased and passed to the American Guardian Association. The reason alleged by the court below in its judgment for holding that the rights and duties of the patria potestas cannot be renounced, is incorrect. Both the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure in dealing with cases of adoption, and said Act No. 3094, itself, authorize the renunciation of the patria potestas and the rights to the care and custody of infants, such renunciation being the basis for the purposes of said laws.

Wherefore, it is held that habeas corpus will not lie, and, the minors having been placed in the applicant’s power, it is ordered that they be restored to the care and custody of the Respondent. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 31342 August 3, 1929 - VICENTE ONG CHIONGCHI v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ORIENTAL NEGROS

    053 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 30532 August 5, 1929 - GODOFREDO MENDOZA v. TEODORO MENDIOLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. 31251 August 6, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGUIA DE TAGA

    053 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 31255 August 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS GEYROSAGA

    053 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 30724 August 8, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO DUCUSIN

    053 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. 31070 August 8, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLES E. T. WADE

    053 Phil 292

  • G.R. Nos. 30486 & 30487 August 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS MAALIHAN

    053 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 31814 August 9, 1929 - FELIX ARAMBULO v. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA ET AL.,

    053 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. 29412 August 10, 1929 - VICTORIANO OMBALINO v. FELIPA SALDARIAGA ET AL.

    053 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 30840 August 10, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL RIVERA

    053 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 30427 August 12, 1929 - HARRY MARTIN v. AGUSAN COCONUT CO.

    053 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 30686 August 12, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN MONTES ET AL.

    053 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 31075 August 12, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TELESFORO APIADO

    053 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 31680 August 14, 1929 - DIONISIO SAN PABLO v. FRANCISCO ENAGE

    053 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 30366 August 15, 1929 - SOCORRO SANCHEZ DE STRONG v. WILLIAM BEISHIR

    053 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. 31025 August 15, 1929 - FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ ET AL. v. JUAN CARPIO

    053 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 30745 August 20, 1929 - J. V. HOUSE v. JUAN POSADAS

    053 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 31024 August 22, 1929 - RICARDO DE MESA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    053 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 29780 August 23, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ASIA LUMBER CO.

    053 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 30234 August 23, 1929 - CLARO VILLAROSA ET AL. v. ULDARICO VILLAMOR

    053 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 30240 August 23, 1929 - AQUILINA TACAS ET AL. v. EVARISTO TOBON

    053 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. 31101 August 23, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DURANTE

    053 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 30495 August 24, 1929 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. JUAN POSADAS

    053 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 30279 August 26, 1929 - MAXIMO GUILLENA v. CANDELARIO BORJA

    053 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 31273 August 26, 1929 - CORNELIO ALBA v. FORTUNATO ACUÑA ET AL.,

    053 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 31636 August 26, 1929 - SATURNINO GALLARDO v. ELIAS ALDANA

    053 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 30783 August 27, 1929 - JUAN B. ALEGRE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 31123 August 27, 1929 - PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. CARMEN BELANDO

    053 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 30421 August 28, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN JAVIER

    053 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 30668 August 28, 1929 - SABAS BUSTAMANTE ET AL. v. JOSE M. RATO Y TUASON ET AL.

    053 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 30829 August 28, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE ET AL.

    053 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 31120 August 28, 1929 - JESUSA LACSON DE ARROYO v. VISAYAN GENERAL SUPPLY CO.

    053 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 31137 August 30, 1929 - CING HONG SO v. TAN BOON KONG ET AL.

    053 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 30246 August 31, 1929 - AGRIPINO DE OCAMPO ET AL. v. JUAN ZAPORTEZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 442