Case Digest (G.R. No. 116773)
Facts:
Teresita Sagala-Eslao v. Court of Appeals and Maria Paz Cordero-Ouye, G.R. No. 116773, November 17, 1997, Supreme Court Second Division, Torres, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is Teresita Sagala-Eslao (paternal grandmother); the respondents are the Court of Appeals and Maria Paz Cordero-Ouye (the child’s natural mother). The dispute concerns the custody of the minor Angelica Eslao.
Chronologically, Maria Paz Cordero-Ouye married Reynaldo Eslao on June 22, 1984. The couple lived with Reynaldo’s mother, Teresita Eslao, at a family home in Paco, Manila. Two children were born of the marriage: Leslie Eslao (born February 23, 1986) and Angelica Eslao (born April 20, 1987). Leslie was entrusted to the care of the mother’s own mother in Sta. Ana, Pampanga, while Angelica remained with her parents at the grandmother’s house. Reynaldo died on August 6, 1990. At that time the mother intended to bring Angelica to Pampanga, but the grandmother persuaded her to entrust Angelica’s custody to the grandmother to assuage the latter’s grief.
Thereafter, the mother met and married Dr. James Manabu-Ouye on March 18, 1992, and migrated to San Francisco, California, on January 15, 1993, to join him. The mother’s husband is described as financially well off and willing to adopt and support the children. On June 24, 1993, the mother returned to the Philippines and demanded the return of Angelica; when the grandmother refused, the mother’s counsel sent a demand letter (Exh. D) and, upon noncompliance, the mother instituted an action to recover custody of Angelica.
The trial court granted the mother’s petition and ordered the immediate transfer of custody of Angelica to her natural mother. On appeal, the Co...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Maria Paz Cordero-Ouye abandon her minor daughter Angelica Eslao, thereby forfeiting her parental right to custody?
- Was there a compelling reason to separate the minor Angelica from her natural mother in favor of the grandmother, Teresita Sagala-Eslao?
- Is the petitioner, Teresita Sagala-Eslao, fit t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)