Santos vs Republic

Petitioner Santos spouses seek to adopt the 4-year

old sickly brother of the wife. It was established that the
petitioners are both 32 years of age and have maintained a
conugal home of their own. !hey do not have a child of their
own blood nor has any one of them been convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude. "uis #. Santos$ %r.$ is a lawyer$ with
business interests in a te&tile development enterprise and the
I'( electric plant$ and is the general manager of )edry Inc.
and the secretary-treasurer of 'earen #nterprises. *is co-
petitioner-wife is a nurse by profession. !he parents of the
child testified that they entrusted him to the petitioners who
reared and brought him up.
Issue+ ,an a sister adopt her own brother-
Held+
(rticle 33. of the ,ivil ,ode enumerates those
persons who may not adopt$ and it has been shown that
petitioners-appellants herein are not among those prohibited
from adopting. (rticle 33/ of the same code names those who
cannot be adopted$ and the minor child whose adoption is
under consideration$ is not one of those e&cluded by the law.
(rticle 330$ on the other hand$ allows the adoption of a natural
child by the natural father or mother$ of other illegitimate
children by their father or mother$ and of a step-child by the
step-father or stepmother. !his last article is$ of course$
necessary to remove all doubts that adoption is not prohibited
even in these cases where there already e&ist a relationship of
parent and child between them by nature. !o say that adoption
should not be allowed when the adopter and the adopted are
related to each other$ e&cept in these cases enumerated in
(rticle 330$ is to preclude adoption among relatives no matter
how far removed or in whatever degree that relationship might
be$ which in our opinion is not the policy of the law. !he
interest and welfare of the child to be adopted should be of
paramount consideration.
Republic vs Court of Appeals
%ames *ughes$ a natural born citi1en of the 2nited
States of (merica$ married "enita )abunay$ a 3ilipino ,iti1en$
who herself was later naturali1ed as a citi1en of that country.
!he spouses ointly filed a petition with the 4!, to adopt the
minor niece and nephews of "enita$ who had been living with
the couple even prior to the filing of the petition. !he minors$ as
well as their parents$ gave consent to the adoption. !he 4!,
rendered a decision granting the petition.
Issue+ ,an the spouses adopt the minors-
Held+
5hile %ames (nthony un6uestionably is not permitted
to adopt under any of the e&ceptional cases enumerated in
paragraph 738 of the afore6uoted article$ "enita$ however$ can
6ualify pursuant to paragraph 7387a8. "enita may not thus adopt
alone since (rticle 90. re6uires a oint adoption by the
husband and the wife$ a condition that must be read along
together with (rticle 904. (rt 90. provides+ (rt. 90.. *usband
and wife must ointly adopt$ e&cept in the following cases+ 798
5hen one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child: or
728 5hen one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the
other.
(s amended by #&ecutive ;rder /9$
Presidential <ecree =o. >?3$ had thus made it mandatory for
both the spouses to ointly adopt when one of them was an
alien. !he law was silent when both spouses were of the same
nationality.
!he 3amily ,ode has resolved any possible
uncertainty. (rticle 90. thereof now e&presses the necessity for
oint adoption by the spouses e&cept in only two instances+ 798
5hen one spouse seeks to adopt his own legitimate child: or
728 5hen one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the
other.
It is in the foregoing cases when (rticle 90> of the
,ode$ on the subect of parental authority$ can aptly find
governance. (rticle 90>. In case husband and wife ointly adopt
or one spouse adopts the legitimate child of the other$ oint
parental authority shall be e&ercised by the spouses in
accordance with this ,ode.
Republic vs Toledano
Spouses (lvin (. ,louse and #velyn (. ,louse who
are aliens filed a petition to adopt the minor$ Solomon %oseph
(lcala. !hey are physically$ mentally$ morally$ and financially
capable of adopting Solomon$ a twelve 7928 year old minor.
Since 9/09 to 9/04$ then from =ovember 2$ 9/0/ up
to the present$ Solomon %oseph (lcala was and has been
under the care and custody of private respondents. Solomon
gave his consent to the adoption. *is mother$ =ery (lcala$ a
widow$ likewise consented to the adoption due to poverty and
inability to support and educate her son. !he 4!, granted the
petition.
Issue: ,an the spouses adopt Solomon-
Held:
2nder (rticles 904 and 90. of #&ecutive ;rder 7#.;.8
=o. 2?/$ otherwise known as @!he 3amily ,ode of the
Philippines@$ private respondents spouses ,louse are clearly
barred from adopting Solomon %oseph (lcala.
(rticle 904$ paragraph 738 of #&ecutive ;rder =o. 2?/
e&pressly enumerates the persons who are not 6ualified to
adopt$ viz.+ 738 (n alien$ e&cept+ 7a8 ( former 3ilipino citi1en
who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity: 7b8 ;ne who
seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his or her 3ilipino spouse:
or 7c8 ;ne who is married to a 3ilipino citi1en and seeks to
adopt ointly with his or her spouse a relative by consanguinity
of the latter. (liens not included in the foregoing e&ceptions
may adopt 3ilipino children in accordance with the rules on
inter-country adoption as may be provided by law.
Private respondent #velyn (. ,louse$ on the other
hand$ may appear to 6ualify pursuant to paragraph 37a8 of
(rticle 904 of #.;. 2?/. She was a former 3ilipino citi1en. She
sought to adopt her younger brother. 2nfortunately$ the petition
for adoption cannot be granted in her favor alone without
violating (rticle 90. which mandates a oint adoption by the
husband and wife. It reads+ (rticle 90.. *usband and wife must
ointly adopt$ e&cept in the following cases+ 798 5hen one
spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child: or 728 5hen
one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other.
(rticle 90. re6uires a oint adoption by the husband and wife$ a
condition that must be read along together with (rticle 904.
Cang vs Court of Appeals
Petitioner *erbert ,ang and (nna )arie ,lavano who
were married$ begot three children. <uring the early years of
their marriage$ the ,ang coupleAs relationship was undisturbed.
=ot long thereafter$ however$ (nna )arie learned of her
husbandAs alleged e&tramarital affair. (nna )arie subse6uently
filed a petition for legal separation which was granted. !hey
had an agreement for support of the children and that (nna
)arie can enter into agreements without the written consent of
*erbert. Petitioner left for the 2S.
)eanwhile$ the brother and sister-in-law of (nna
)arie filed for the adoption of the 3 minor ,ang children. 2pon
learning of the adoption$ *erbert went back to the Philippines
to contest it$ but the petition for adoption was granted by the
court.
Issue: ,an minor children be legally adopted without the
written consent of a natural parent on the ground that the latter
has abandoned them-
Held:
(rticle 2.> of the 3amily ,ode provides for its
retroactivity @insofar as it does not preudice or impair vested or
ac6uired rights in accordance with the ,ivil ,ode or other
laws.@ (s amended by the 3amily ,ode$ the statutory provision
on consent for adoption now reads+ (rt. 900. !he written
consent of the following to the adoption shall be necessary+ 728
the parents by nature of the child$ the legal guardian$ or the
proper government instrumentality.
'ased on the foregoing$ it is thus evident that
notwithstanding the amendments to the law$ the written
consent of the natural parent to the adoption has remained a
re6uisite for its validity.
(s clearly inferred from the foregoing provisions of
law$ the written consent of the natural parent is indispensable
for the validity of the decree of adoption. =evertheless$ the
re6uirement of written consent can be dispensed with if the
parent has abandoned the child or that such parent is @insane
or hopelessly intemperate.@
In the instant case$ records disclose that petitionerAs
conduct did not manifest a settled purpose to forego all
parental duties and relin6uish all parental claims over his
children as to$ constitute abandonment. Physical estrangement
alone$ without financial and moral desertion$ is not tantamount
to abandonment. 5hile admittedly$ petitioner was physically
absent as he was then in the 2nited States$ he was not remiss
in his natural and legal obligations of love$ care and support for
his children. *e maintained regular communication with his
wife and children through letters and telephone. *e used to
send packages by mail and catered to their whims.
Cervantes vs Fajardo
!he minor was born to respondents ,onrado 3aardo
and Bina ,arreon$ who are common-law husband and wife.
4espondents offered the child for adoption to Bina ,arreonAs
sister and brother-in-law$ the herein petitioners Cenaida
,arreon-,ervantes and =elson ,ervantes$ spouses$ who took
care and custody of the child when she was barely two 728
weeks old. (n (ffidavit of ,onsent to the adoption of the child
by herein petitioners$ was also e&ecuted by respondent Bina
,arreon.
!he adoptive parents received a letter from the
respondents demanding to be paid the amount of
P9.?$???.??$ otherwise$ they would get back their child.
Petitioners refused to accede to the demand. Subse6uently$
the respondents took the child.
Issue+ ,an respondents take back their child-
Held+
In all cases involving the custody$ care$ education and
property of children$ the latterAs welfare is paramount. !he
provision that no mother shall be separated from a child under
five 7.8 years of age$ will not apply where the ,ourt finds
compelling reasons to rule otherwise. In all controversies
regarding the custody of minors$ the foremost consideration is
the moral$ physical and social welfare of the child concerned$
taking into account the resources and moral as well as social
standing of the contending parents. =ever has this ,ourt
deviated from this criterion.
It is undisputed that respondent ,onrado 3aardo is
legally married to a woman other than respondent Bina
,arreon$ and his relationship with the latter is a common-law
husband and wife relationship. *is open cohabitation with co-
respondent Bina ,arreon will not accord the minor that
desirable atmosphere where she can grow and develop into an
upright and moral-minded person. 'esides$ respondent Bina
,arreon had previously given birth to another child by another
married man with whom she lived for almost three 738 years but
who eventually left her and vanished. 2pon the other hand$
petitioners who are legally married appear to be morally$
physically$ financially$ and socially capable of supporting the
minor and giving her a future better than what the natural
mother$ whp is not only obless but also maintains an illicit
relation with a married man$ can most likely give her.
'esides$ the minor has been legally adopted by
petitioners with the full knowledge and consent of respondents.
( decree of adoption has the effect$ among others$ of
dissolving the authority vested in natural parents over the
adopted child$ e&cept where the adopting parent is the spouse
of the natural parent of the adopted$ in which case$ parental
authority over the adopted shall be e&ercised ointly by both
spouses. !he adopting parents have the right to the care and
custody of the adopted child and e&ercise parental authority
and responsibility over him.
Sayson vs Court of Appeals
#leno and 4afaela Sayson begot five children$
namely$ )auricio$ 4osario$ 'asilisa$ 4emedios and !eodoro.
#leno died on =ovember 9?$ 9/.2$ and 4afaela on )ay 9.$
9/D>. !eodoro$ who had married Isabel 'autista$ died on
)arch 23$ 9/D2. *is wife died nine years later. !heir properties
were left in the possession of <elia$ #dmundo$ and <oribel$ all
surnamed Sayson$ who claim to be their children.
)auricio$ 4osario$ 'asilisa$ and 4emedios$ together
with %uana ,. 'autista$ IsabelAs mother$ filed a complaint for
partition and accounting of the intestate estate of !eodoro and
Isabel Sayson. <elia$ #dmundo and <oribel filed their own
complaint$ this time for the accounting and partition of the
intestate estate of #leno and 4afaela Sayson$ against the
coupleAs four surviving children.
'oth cases were decided in favor <elia$ et al on the
basis of practically the same evidence. !he %udge declared in
his decision that <elia and #dmundo were the legally adopted
children of !eodoro and Isabel Sayson by virtue of the decree
of adoption. <oribel was their legitimate daughter as evidenced
by her birth certificate. ,onse6uently$ the three children were
entitled to inherit from #leno and 4afaela by right of
representation.
Held:
In conse6uence of the above observations$ we hold
that <oribel$ as the legitimate daughter of !eodoro and Isabel
Sayson$ and <elia and #dmundo$ as their adopted children$
are the e&clusive heirs to the intestate estate of the deceased
couple$ conformably to the following (rticle /D/ of the ,ivil
,ode+ (rt. /D/. "egitimate children and their descendants
succeed the parents and other ascendants$ without distinction
as to se& or age$ and even if they should come from different
marriages. (n adopted child succeeds to the property of the
adopting parents in the same manner as a legitimate child.
!here is no 6uestion that as the legitimate daughter of
!eodoro and thus the granddaughter of #leno and 4afaela$
<oribel has a right to represent her deceased father in the
distribution of the intestate estate of her grandparents. 2nder
(rticle /09$ 6uoted above$ she is entitled to the share her
father would have directly inherited had he survived$ which
shall be e6ual to the shares of her grandparentsA other
children.