G.R. No. L-23253 - IN RE: Chua vs. Cabangbang

Pacita Chua, the petitioner-appellant, had a lifestyle marked by multiple relationships and cohabitations.
Initially, she lived with Chua Ben in 1950, with whom she had a child that died in infancy.
She later cohabited with Sy Sia Lay and had two children: Robert and Betty Chua Sy. Betty was born on December 15, 1957.
After the birth of Betty, Pacita and Sy Sia Lay separated, leaving her without a stable support system.

In May 1958, Bartolome Cabangbang and his wife, a childless couple, acquired the custody of the then four‐month-old child.
The child was subsequently christened as Grace Cabangbang on September 12, 1958.
There is conflicting testimony regarding how custody was transferred:

Pacita Chua claimed that in October 1958, while still with Villareal, the latter surreptitiously took her daughter and gave her to the Cabangbangs in return for favors.
The Cabangbang spouses contended that they found the child at their residence’s gate and raised her affectionately, asserting that no mal-intent was involved.

Ultimately, the lower court found that the child was given to the Cabangbang spouses by Villareal with the knowledge and consent of Pacita Chua.

On June 6, 1963, Pacita Chua, through counsel, demanded the return of her daughter via a letter addressed to the Cabangbangs (with Villareal copied).
Failing to regain custody, she filed a petition for habeas corpus on June 14, 1963, naming Villareal and the Cabangbang spouses as respondents.
A writ of habeas corpus was issued on June 15, 1963, with the directive to produce the child before the lower court on June 17, 1963; however, the child was not produced.
The respondents filed their respective answers shortly after, with Villareal on June 21, 1963, and the Cabangbangs the following day.

On May 21, 1964, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision awarding custody of the child to the Cabangbang spouses based on her welfare, thereby dismissing Pacita Chua’s petition.
On appeal, the petitioner raised two main issues:

That the lower court erred in awarding custody of her daughter (then a minor originally under seven, though now aged 11) to the Cabangbang spouses.
That she was illegally deprived of parental authority over her daughter since none of the statutory grounds for deprivation (under Article 332 of the Civil Code) were met.

The record revealed that Pacita Chua had, over a prolonged period, neglected taking steps to recover her daughter and exhibited inconsistent motives—seeking the child primarily as leverage for financial gain or support rather than out of genuine maternal affection.

Whether the lower court erred in awarding custody of Betty Chua Sy (Grace Cabangbang) to the respondents even though the child was originally under seven years of age, and if such an award is justified now that the child has reached the age of 11.
Whether the petitioner’s parental authority could be validly deprived based on the grounds of abandonment, given her prolonged inaction and conflicting motives regarding the recovery of her daughter.
Whether the absence of kinship between the Cabangbang spouses and the child, and the nature of their prayers in the answer, nullify the legitimacy of awarding custody to them.
Whether the petition for habeas corpus could stand when the petitioner had effectively forfeited her legal and moral claim to her daughter by abandoning the parental responsibilities.