ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 190 September 26, 1964 - MARCOS MEDINA v. LORETO U. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-17405 September 26, 1964 - JOSE AGUDO, JR. v. JOSE R. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19132 September 26, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO CAÑADA

  • G.R. No. L-17069 September 28, 1964 - LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC. v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-18421 September 28, 1964 - TOMAS BESA v. JOSE CASTELLVI

  • G.R. No. L-18817 September 28, 1964 - ANTONIO G. TADY-Y v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-18865 September 28, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN S. ALANO

  • G.R. No. L-20219 September 28, 1964 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-22626 September 28, 1964 - ALICE FOLEY VDA. DE MARCELO v. RAFAEL S. SISON

  • G.R. No. L-16252 September 29, 1964 - ROSARIO MAS v. ELISA DUMARA-OG

  • G.R. No. L-17097 September 29, 1964 - PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE COMPANY v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-19159 September 29, 1964 - GLICERIA C. LIWANAG v. LUIS B. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-19391 September 29, 1964 - CECILIO DE LA CRUZ v. MANUEL JESUS DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-19776 September 29, 1964 - BENJAMIN CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19957 September 29, 1964 - ELIAS AGUSTIN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PANIQUI SUGAR MILLS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-20111 September 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO E. VARGAS

  • G.R. No. L-14888 September 30, 1964 - MERCEDES CLEMENTE v. JOVITO BONIFACIO

  • G.R. No. L-15418 September 30, 1964 - WEST LEYTE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. ADELAIDO SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-17029 September 30, 1964 - SAMUEL S. SHARRUF v. FRANK BUBLA

  • G.R. No. L-17194 September 30, 1964 - PRIMITIVO SATO v. SIMEON RALLOS

  • G.R. No. L-17960 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: SY CHHUT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18596 September 30, 1964 - ALVAREZ MALAGUIT v. FELIX ALIPIO

  • G.R. No. L-18674 September 30, 1964 - FLORENTINA CALMA v. JOSE MONTUYA

  • G.R. No. L-19107-09 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: LAO YAP HAN DIOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19419 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: GAW CHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19583 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: ONG BON KOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. No. L-19709 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19778 September 30, 1964 - CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS UNION (PTUC) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19830 September 30, 1964 - IN RE: PAUL TEH v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20077 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO PACOMIO

  • G.R. No. L-20103 September 30, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. CONCHITA VDA. DE CHAVEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20146 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO OPLADO

  • G.R. No. L-20150 September 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN DOCTOR y DIZON

  • G.R. No. L-20232 September 30, 1964 - MUNICIPALITY OF LA CARLOTA v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS and SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-20219 September 28, 1964 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-19391   September 29, 1964 - CECILIO DE LA CRUZ v. MANUEL JESUS DE LA CRUZ

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-19391. September 29, 1964.]

    CECILIO DE LA CRUZ and EUSTAQUIA DEVIS DE LA CRUZ, Petitioners-Appellants, v. MANUEL JESUS DE LA CRUZ, Respondent-Appellee.

    Bernardo M. Norada of Petitioners-Appellants.

    Pablo C. Sanidad for Respondents-Appellees.


    SYLLABUS


    1. ADOPTION; RESCISSION AND REVOCATION; VENUE; PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF PETITIONER. — The venue of an action for revocation of adoption, applying Rule 99 of the Rules of Court in a suppletory character, is the place of resident of the petitioner.

    2. SAME; SAME; DISTINCT AND SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS FROM ADOPTION. — The proceedings for adoption and revocation of adoption are separate and distinct from each other. In the first what is determined is the propriety of establishing the relationship of parent and child between two persons not so related by nature. In the other proceeding either the adopting parent or the adopted seeks to severe the relationship previously established, and the inquiry refers to the truth of the grounds upon which the revocation is sought. Once the proper court has granted a petitioner for adoption and the decree has become final the proceedings is terminated and closed. A subsequent petition for revocation of the adoption is neither a continuation of nor an incident in the proceeding for adoption. It is an entirely new one, dependent on facts which have happened since the decree of adoption.

    3. SAME; SAME; SAME; NO INTERFERENCE WITH DECREES OF COURT OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION. — The doctrine that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of coordinate jurisdiction is not applicable to a petition for revocation of an adoption where the validity and effectiveness of the decree of adoption is not in question and such decree is not sought to be enjoined nor its execution restrained but what is sought is its revocation because of circumstances subsequently supervening which, under the law, render the continuation of the adoptive relationship unjustified and impractical.


    D E C I S I O N


    MAKALINTAL, J.:


    This is an appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan dismissing the petition for revocation of the adoption of Manuel J. (Aquino) de la Cruz, filed by his adoptive parents in accordance with Article 348 of the Civil Code.

    By judgment dated August 16, 1954 of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur (Sp. Proc. No. 1401) the minor Manuel J. Aquino was declared the legally adopted child of the spouses Cecilio de la Cruz and Eustaquia Devis de la Cruz. Seven years later the adopting parents filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan 1 a petition to have the decree of adoption revoked on the ground that the adopted minor had definitely repudiated the adoption by open display of defiance, animosity, revulsion and disobedience to petitioners and had for more than three years abandoned petitioners’ home by living with his natural mother, Felicidad Dasalla, in Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur. A special appearance was entered by counsel for the minor with a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that (1) the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject-matter thereof; (2) the Court had not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the adopted minor; (3) venue was improperly laid; and (4) the petitioner did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

    The motion to dismiss was granted, the trial court stating that since the "initial proceedings were totally had in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur," the "expediente in said Case No. 1041 is still, presumably, open for the herein petitioners to come in and ask for the revocation of the decree of adoption." The Court added, by implication, that it had no power to interfere with the judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction.

    The provisions of the Civil Code on revocation of adoption do not specify the court where the proceedings should be filed. The Rules of Court designate the venue of a proceeding for adoption, which is the place where the petitioner resides (Section 1, Rule 99), but is silent with respect to the venue of proceeding for rescission and revocation of adoption (Rule 100). It is clear that the two proceedings are separate and distinct from each other. In the first what is determined is the propriety of establishing the relationship of parent and child between two persons not so related by nature. For that purpose the court inquires into the qualifications and disqualifications of the adopter; the personal circumstances of the person to be adopted; the probable value and character of h is estate; the other proceeding either the adopting parent or the adopted seeks to severe the relationship previously established, and the inquiry refers to the truth of the grounds which the revocation is sought.

    Once the proper court has granted a petition for adoption and the decree has become final the proceeding is terminated and closed. A subsequent petition for revocation of the adoption is neither a continuation of nor an incident in the proceeding for adoption. It is an entirely new one, defendant on facts which have happened since the decree of adoption. The venue of this new case, applying Rule 99 in a suppletory character, is also the place of the residence of the petitioner. In the present instance of the residence of the petitioner. In the present instance petitioners reside in Pangasinan, having moved there form their former residence in Ilocos Sur.

    The doctrine relied upon by the lower court, to the effect that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of coordinate jurisdiction, is not here applicable. There is no such interference. The validity of effectiveness of the decree of adoption issued by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur is not in question. It is not sought to be enjoined, or its execution restrained. What is sought is its revocation because of circumstances subsequently supervening which, under the law, render the continuation of the adoptive relationship unjustified and impractical.

    We hold that venue was properly laid in the case; and with respect to the objection that the court does not have jurisdiction over the adopted minor, we note that petitioners-appellants filed a motion below for the appointment of the minor’s natural mother, Felicidad Dasalla, as his guardian ad litem, although the court did not think it necessary to grant the same in view of its order of dismissal.

    The order of dismissal is set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings. Upon rendition of judgment, a copy thereof should be sent to the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur to be filed with the record of the adoption proceeding, aside from the service on the Civil Registrar concerned as required by Section 4 of Rule 100. Costs against appellees.

    Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

    Barrera, J., took no part.

    Endnotes:



    1. Petitioners are residents of Alac, San Quintin, Pangasinan.

    G.R. No. L-19391   September 29, 1964 - CECILIO DE LA CRUZ v. MANUEL JESUS DE LA CRUZ


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED