SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 94147 June 8, 1994

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE RODOLFO TOLEDANO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch 69, Iba, Zambales and SPOUSES ALVIN A. CLOUSE and EVELYN A. CLOUSE, Respondents.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.chanrobles virtual law library

R.M. Blanco for private respondents.

PUNO, J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision ¹of the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales, Branch 69, in Special Proceeding No. RTC-140-I, entitled, "In the Matter of the Adoption of the Minor named Solomon Joseph Alcala", raising a pure question of law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The sole issue for determination concerns the right of private respondents spouses Alvin A. Clouse and Evelyn A. Clouse who are aliens to adopt under Philippine Law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

There is no controversy as to the facts.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On February 21, 1990, in a verified petition filed before the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales, private respondents spouses Clouse sought to adopt the minor, Solomon Joseph Alcala, the younger brother of private respondent Evelyn A. Clouse. In an Order issued on March 12, 1990, the petition was set for hearing on April 18, 1990. The said Order was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province of Zambales and City of Olongapo for three (3) consecutive weeks.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The principal evidence disclose that private respondent Alvin A. Clouse is a natural born citizen of the United States of America. He married Evelyn, a Filipino on June 4, 1981 at Olongapo City. On August 19, 1988, Evelyn became a naturalized citizen of the United States of America in Guam. They are physically, mentally, morally, and financially capable of adopting Solomon, a twelve (12) year old minor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Since 1981 to 1984, then from November 2, 1989 up to the present, Solomon Joseph Alcala was and has been under the care and custody of private respondents. Solomon gave his consent to the adoption. His mother, Nery Alcala, a widow, likewise consented to the adoption due to poverty and inability to support and educate her son.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Mrs. Nila Corazon Pronda, the social worker assigned to conduct the Home and Child Study, favorably recommended the granting of the petition for adoption.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Finding that private respondents have all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law and that the adoption will redound to the best interest and welfare of the minor, respondent judge rendered a decision on June 20, 1990, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court grants the petition for adoption filed by Spouses Alvin A. Clouse and Evelyn A. Clouse and decrees that the said minor be considered as their child by adoption. To this effect, the Court gives the minor the rights and duties as the legitimate child of the petitioners. Henceforth, he shall be known as SOLOMON ALCALA CLOUSE.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The Court dissolves parental authority bestowed upon his natural parents and vests parental authority to the herein petitioners and makes him their legal heir. Pursuant to Article 36 of P.D. 603 as amended, the decree of adoption shall be effective as of the date when the petition was filed. In accordance with Article 53 of the same decree, let this decree of adoption be recorded in the corresponding government agency, particularly the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Merida, Leyte where the minor was born. The said office of the Local Civil Registrar is hereby directed to issue an amended certificate of live birth to the minor adopted by the petitioners.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Let copies of this decision be furnished (sic) the petitioners, DSWD, Zambales Branch, Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Merida, Leyte.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED. ²chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General appealed to us for relief, contending:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF ALVIN AND EVELYN CLOUSE, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO ADOPT UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW.

We rule for petitioner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Under Articles 184 and 185 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 209, otherwise known as "The Family Code of the Philippines", private respondents spouses Clouse are clearly barred from adopting Solomon Joseph Alcala.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Article 184, paragraph (3) of Executive Order No. 209 expressly enumerates the persons who are not qualified to adopt, viz.:

(3) An alien, except:

(a) A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity;chanrobles virtual law library

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

(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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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.

There can be no question that private respondent Alvin A. Clouse is not qualified to adopt Solomon Joseph Alcala under any of the exceptional cases in the aforequoted provision. In the first place, he is not a former Filipino citizen but a natural born citizen of the United States of America. In the second place, Solomon Joseph Alcala is neither his relative by consanguinity nor the legitimate child of his spouse. In the third place, when private respondents spouses Clouse jointly filed the petition to adopt Solomon Joseph Alcala on February 21, 1990, private respondent Evelyn A. Clouse was no longer a Filipino citizen. She lost her Filipino citizenship when she was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1988.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Private respondent Evelyn A. Clouse, on the other hand, may appear to qualify pursuant to paragraph 3(a) of Article 184 of E.O. 209. She was a former Filipino citizen. She sought to adopt her younger brother. Unfortunately, the petition for adoption cannot be granted in her favor alone without violating Article 185 which mandates a joint adoption by the husband and wife. It reads:

Article 185. Husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in the following cases:chanrobles virtual law library

(1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; orchanrobles virtual law library

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

Article 185 requires a joint adoption by the husband and wife, a condition that must be read along together with Article 184. ³chanrobles virtual law library

The historical evolution of this provision is clear. Presidential Decree 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code), provides that husband and wife "may" jointly adopt. ⁴Executive Order No. 91 issued on December 17, 1986 amended said provision of P.D. 603. It demands that both husband and wife "shall" jointly adopt if one of them is an alien. ⁵It was so crafted to protect Filipino children who are put up for adoption. The Family Code reiterated the rule by requiring that husband and wife "must" jointly adopt, except in the cases mentioned before. Under the said new law, joint adoption by husband and wife is mandatory. ⁶This is in consonance with the concept of joint parental authority over the child, which is the ideal situation. ⁷As the child to be adopted is elevated to the level of a legitimate child, it is but natural to require the spouses to adopt jointly. The rule also insures harmony between the spouses. ⁸chanrobles virtual law library

In a distinctly similar case, we held:

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The Family Code has resolved any possible uncertainty. Article 185 thereof 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; orchanrobles virtual law library

(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 parental authority, can aptly find governance.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Article 186. In case husband and wife jointly adopt or one spouse adopts the legitimate child of the other, jointly parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses in accordance with this Code. ⁹chanrobles virtual law library

Article 185 is all too clear and categorical and there is no room for its interpretation. There is only room for application. ¹⁰chanrobles virtual law library

We are not unaware that the modern trend is to encourage adoption and every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote that objective. ¹¹Adoption is geared more towards the promotion of the welfare of the child and enhancement of his opportunities for a useful and happy life. ¹²It is not the bureaucratic technicalities but the interest of the child that should be the principal criterion in adoption cases. ¹³Executive Order 209 likewise upholds that the interest and welfare of the child to be adopted should be the paramount consideration. These considerations notwithstanding, the records of the case do not evince any fact as would justify us in allowing the adoption of the minor, Solomon Joseph Alcala, by private respondents who are aliens.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the lower court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.