Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > October 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 100835 October 26, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 100835. October 26, 1993.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and the spouses JAMES ANTHONY HUGHES and LENITA MABUNAY HUGHES, Respondents.

The Solicitor General for Petitioner.

Westremundo y. De Guzman for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; ADOPTION; ADOPTION BY SPOUSES WHEN ONE OF THEM IS AN ALIEN; RULE AND EXCEPTION. — As amended by Executive Order 91, Presidential Decree No. 603, had thus made it mandatory for both the spouses to jointly adopt when one of them was an alien. The law was silent when both spouses were of the same nationality. The Family Code has resolved any possible uncertainty. Article 185 thereof now expresses the necessity for a joint adoption by the spouses except in only two instances — (1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or (2) When one spouses seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other. It is in the foregoing cases when Article 186 of the Code, on the subject of parental authority, can aptly find governance. "Article 186. In case husband and wife jointly adopt or one spouse adopts the legitimate child of the other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses in accordance with this Code."


D E C I S I O N


VITUG, J.:


James Anthony Hughes, a natural born citizen of the United States of America, married Lenita Mabunay Hughes, a Filipino citizen, who herself was later naturalized as a citizen of that country. On 29 June 1990, the spouses jointly filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 60, to adopt Ma. Cecilia, Neil and Mario, all surnamed Mabunay, minor niece and nephews of Lenita, who had been living with the couple even prior to the filing of the petition. The minors, as well as their parents, gave consent to the adoption.chanrobles law library : red

On 29 November 1990, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision granting the petition. A Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed with this Court, assailing the trial court’s decision. This Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals which, on 09 July 1991, affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Hence, the present petition. The petitioner assigned a lone error on the part of the respondent court, thus —

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF SPOUSES JAMES ANTHONY HUGHES AND LENITA MABUNAY HUGHES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO ADOPT UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW.

It is clear that James Anthony is not qualified to adopt. Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as "The Family Code of the Philippines," is explicit.

"Art. 184. The following persons may not adopt:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) The guardian with respect to the ward prior to the approval of the final accounts rendered upon the termination of their guardianship relation;

(2) Any person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;

(3) An alien, except:.

(a) A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity;

(b) One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his or her Filipino spouse; or

(c) One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his or her spouse a relative by consanguinity of the latter.

Aliens not included in the foregoing exceptions may adopt Filipino children in accordance with the rules on inter-country adoption as may be provided by law."cralaw virtua1aw library

While James Anthony unquestionably is not permitted to adopt under any of the exceptional cases enumerated in paragraph (3) of the aforequoted article, Lenita, however, can qualify pursuant to paragraph (3)(a). The problem in her case lies, instead, with Article 185 of Executive Order No. 209, expressing, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Art. 185. Husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in the following cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or

(2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other."cralaw virtua1aw library

Lenita may not thus adopt alone since Article 185 requires a joint adoption by the husband and the wife, a condition that must be read along together with Article 184.

The old law on adoption, Presidential Decree No. 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code), exactly adopted that found in then Article 336 of the Civil Code. Article 29, Section B, Chapter I, Title II, of the said decree provided:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Art. 29. Husband and wife may jointly adopt. In such case, parental authority shall be exercised as if the child were their own by nature."cralaw virtua1aw library

Observe that the law then in force used the word "may" under which regime, a joint adoption by the spouses was apparently not made obligatory. The provision was later amended, however, by Executive Order No. 91, dated 17 December 1986, of President Corazon C. Aquino. The new Article 29 expressed, thus —

"Art. 29. Husband and Wife may jointly adopt. In such case, parental authority shall be exercised as if the child were their own by nature.

If one of the spouses is an alien, both husband and wife shall jointly adopt. Otherwise, the adoption shall not be allowed."cralaw virtua1aw library

As amended by Executive Order 91, Presidential Decree No. 603, had thus made it mandatory for both the spouses to jointly adopt when one of them was an alien. The law was silent when both spouses were of the same nationality.

The Family Code has resolved any possible uncertainty. Article 185 thereof now expresses the necessity for a joint adoption by the spouses except in only two instances —

(1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or

(2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other.

It is in the foregoing cases when Article 186 of the Code, on the subject of parental authority, can aptly find governance.

"Article 186. In case husband and wife jointly adopt or one spouse adopts the legitimate child of the other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses in accordance with this Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

The respondent court, in affirming the grant of adoption by the lower court, has theorized that James Anthony should merely be considered a "nominal or formal party" in the proceedings. This view of the appellate court cannot be sustained. Adoption creates a status that is closely assimilated to legitimate paternity and filiation with corresponding rights and duties that necessarily flow from adoption, such as, but not necessarily confined to, the exercise of parental authority, use of surname of the adopter by the adopted, as well as support and successional rights. These are matters that obviously cannot be considered inconsequential to the parties.

We are not unmindful of the possible benefits, particularly in this instance, that an adoption can bring not so much for the prospective adopting parents as for the adopted children themselves. We also realize that in proceedings of this nature, paramount consideration is given to the physical, moral, social and intellectual welfare of the adopted for whom the law on adoption has in the first place been designed. When, however, the law is clear and no other choice is given, 1 we must obey its full mandate.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Even then, we find it difficult to conclude this opinion without having to call the attention of the appropriate agencies concerned to the urgency of addressing the issue on inter-country adoption, a matter that evidently is likewise espoused by the Family Code (Article 184, last paragraph, Family Code).cralawnad

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the respondent court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. At least until such time as the "rules on inter-country adoption" are provided for by law pursuant to Article 184 of the Family Code.




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






October-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. RTJ-91-762 October 1, 1993 - ERNESTO J. YUSON v. FEDERICO V. NOEL

  • G.R. No. 79090 October 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO C. JOYA

  • G.R. No. 96781 October 1, 1993 - EMILIANO MANUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 98123 October 1, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR M. RIVERA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 101207 October 1, 1993 - COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 101711 October 1, 1993 - ROGELIO R. MACAPALAN v. BETHEL KATALBAS-MOSCARDON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 103259 October 1, 1993 - ADELINA CALDERON-BARGAS, ET AL v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 77368 October 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE C. DE GUZMAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 92533 October 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN N. NIMO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 97307 October 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL B. DUSOHAN

  • G.R. No. 98433 October 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOFIO G. MOHADO

  • G.R. No. 111511 October 5, 1993 - ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 102013 October 8, 1993 - DOMINGO R. DANDO v. NORMAN JAMES FRASER, ET AL

  • A.M. No. MTJ-93-753 October 12, 1993 - EDMUNDO S. ANCOG v. JOSE Z. TAN

  • G.R. No. 89319 October 12, 1993 - JENG EVANGELISTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. 102618 October 12, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 102927 October 12, 1993 - BIG COUNTRY RANCH CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 105803 October 12, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN S. TAYAG

  • G.R. Nos. 105959-60 October 12, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOBBY SENCIL, ET AL

  • A.M. No. 91-1-2421-MTC October 13, 1993 - INRE: ARTURO L. JULIANO

  • A.M. No. 93-7-428-MeTC October 13, 1993 - INRE: ENRIQUE A. CUBE

  • G.R. No. 96739 October 13, 1993 - DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY v. COMMISSIONERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100284 October 13, 1993 - NARCISO E. MAMARIL v. EUFEMIO C. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. 103633 October 13, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 105112 October 13, 1993 - LEAH Y. APURILLO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL

  • A.M. No. P-93-958 October 14, 1993 - HERMINIO VILLAMAYOR v. TOMAS VERA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 102954 October 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO HANGAD, ET AL

  • A.M. No. RTJ-92-899 October 15, 1993 - LOLITA QUE LIM v. ROGER A. DOMAGAS

  • G.R. No. 98084 October 18, 1993 - NEMESIO C. VIDAD, ET AL v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NEGROS ORIENTAL, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 101000-01 October 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN DE LA CRUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 101191 October 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO A. BRAVO

  • G.R. No. 110295 October 18, 1993 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • A.M. No. P-93-825 October 20, 1993 - ABRAHAM PRINCIPE v. ROMEO R. FLORENDO

  • G.R. No. 89667 October 20, 1993 - JOSEPHINE B. BELCODERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107852 October 20, 1993 - GREGORIO N. ARUELO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. L-31776-78 October 21, 1993 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. MANILA STAR FERRY, INC.,

  • G.R. No. 103973 October 21, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURORA G. ESCALONA

  • G.R. No. 104813 October 21, 1993 - HEIRS OF JOSE OLVIGA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 106454 October 21, 1993 - BENCIO CARAAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 110280 October 21, 1993 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF REGENTS, ET AL v. ELSIE LIGOT-TELAN

  • G.R. No. 93435 October 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO T. MADRIDANO

  • G.R. No. 97929 October 22, 1993 - LEONIDA LANTICAN, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 104498 October 22, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINO R. REMOLLO

  • G.R. No. 88539 October 26, 1993 - KUE CUISON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 100835 October 26, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 101833-34 October 26, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO B. ARCE

  • G.R. No. 104731 October 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO A. PASTORES

  • G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993 - ALBINO S. CO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-48817 October 29, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 56768 October 29, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO LACTAO

  • G.R. No. 76351 October 29, 1993 - VIRGILIO B. AGUILAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL