SUBJECT: TOPIC: CASE NAME:

Persons Rights and Obligations of Spouse Johnston vs. Republic

RELEVANT PROVISIONS:

Art. 341, CC. The adoption shall:

(1) Give to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter:
(2) Dissolve the authority vested in the parents by nature;
(3) Make the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter;
(4) Entitle the adopted person to use the adopter's surname.

PONENTE: Case Date: April 30, 1963

CASE SUMMARY:

Isabel adopted Ana on her own, without the concurrence of her husband. Ana was given her maiden name
instead of her married surname, Valdes-Johnston. Isabel sought to change this, but was denied by the
RTC and the SC since Art. 341 of the CC states that only her surname was allowed to be given to her
adopted daughter.

DETAILED FACTS:
- June 24, 1960, petitioner-appellant Isabel Valdes Johnston, filed a petition for the adoption of one Ana
Isabelle Henriette Concepcion Georgiana
- The petitioner-appellant filed a motion on October 24, 1960, praying that the surname given to the
minor be "Valdes Johnston", instead of "Valdes" only, as to not make it seem like Ana is an illegitimate
child and to prevent her from future embarrassing situations.
- This motion was denied by the lower court in its order of October 31, 1960.

ISSUE and HOLDING:

Issue: Whether Isabels adopted daughter can take on the surname Valdes-Johnston instead of Valdes
only.

Holding: NO Since only Isabel sought to adopt Ana, she it was her surname that was to be given to the
adopted daughter.
The provision of law (Art. 341, par. 4, Civil Code) which entitles the adopted minor to the use of the
adopter's surname, refers to the adopter's own surname and not to her surname acquired by virtue of
marriage. Petitioner-appellant's real surname is Valdes and not Johnston, and as she made the adoption
singly without the concurrence of her husband, and not as a married woman, her name as adopter was her
maiden name.
Since adoption gives the person adopted the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the
adopter (Art. 341, par. 1, Civil Code), much confusion would indeed result, as correctly pointed out by the
Solicitor General, if the minor child herein were allowed to use the surname of the spouse who did not join

CDUNGO_A2021 1
in the adoption. It would mislead others to think that her husband had adopted Ana as well.

RULING:
Decision affirmed, Valdes is retained as Anas surname.

CDUNGO_A2021 2