VOL.227,OCTOBER26,1993 401

Republic vs. Court of Appeals

G.R.No.100835.October26,1993.*

REPUBLICOF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THEHONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and the spousesJAMES ANTHONY HUGHES and LENITA MABUNAYHUGHES,respondents.

Civil Law; Adoption; Under Presidential Decree No. 603, a jointadoption by the spouses was apparently not madeobligatory.—Observe that the law then in force used the word“may” under which regime, a joint adoption by the spouses wasapparentlynotmadeobligatory.

Same; Same; Executive Order 91 made it mandatory for boththe spouses to jointly adopt when one of them was an alien.—AsamendedbyExecutiveOrder91,PresidentialDecreeNo.603,hadthusmadeitmandatoryforboththespousestojointlyadoptwhenone of themwas an alien. The lawwas silentwhen both spouseswereofthesamenationality.

Same; Same; Article 185 of Executive Order No. 209 expressesthe necessity for a joint adoption by the spouses except in twoinstances.—TheFamilyCodehasresolvedanypossibleuncertainty.Article185thereofnowexpressesthenecessityforajointadoptionbythespousesexcept inonlytwoinstances—(1)Whenonespouseseeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or (2)When one spouseseekstoadoptthelegitimatechildoftheother.

Same; Same; In adoption, paramount consideration is given tothe physical, moral, social and intellectual welfare of theadopted.—We are not unmindful of the possible benefits,particularly in this instance, that an adoption can bring not somuch for the prospective adopting parents as for the adoptedchildren themselves. We also realize that in proceedings of thisnature, paramount consideration is given to the physical, moral,socialand intellectualwelfareof theadopted forwhomthe lawonadoptionhas inthe firstplacebeendesigned.When,however, thelaw is clear and no other choice is given, we must obey its fullmandate.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.

_______________

*THIRDDIVISION.

402

402 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

(1)

(2)

(3)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Republic vs. Court of Appeals

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.The Solicitor Generalforpetitioner.Westremundo y. De Guzmanforprivaterespondents.

VITUG,J.:

James Anthony Hughes, a natural born citizen of theUnited States of America, married Lenita MabunayHughes,aFilipinocitizen,whoherselfwaslaternaturalizedasacitizenofthatcountry.On29June1990,thespousesjointly filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court ofAngeles City, Branch 60, to adopt Ma. Cecilia, Neil andMario,allsurnamedMabunay,minornieceandnephewsofLenita,whohadbeen livingwith thecoupleevenprior tothe filing of the petition. The minors, as well as theirparents,gaveconsenttotheadoption.

On 29 November 1990, the Regional Trial Courtrendered a decision granting the petition. A petition forReviewonCertiorariwasfiledwiththisCourt,assailingthetrial court’s decision. This Court referred the case to theCourtofAppealswhich,on09July1991,affirmedthetrialcourt’sdecision.

Hence, the present petition. The petitioner assigned aloneerroronthepartoftherespondentcourt,thus—

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITIONFOR ADOPTION OF SPOUSES JAMES ANTHONY HUGHESANDLENITAMABUNAYHUGHESBECAUSETHEYARENOTQUALIFIEDTOADOPTUNDERPHILIPPINELAW.

It is clear that James Anthony is not qualified to adopt.ExecutiveOrderNo.209,otherwiseknownas ‘TheFamilyCodeofthePhilippines,”isexplicit.

“Art.184.Thefollowingpersonsmaynotadopt:

Theguardianwithrespecttothewardpriortotheapprovalofthefinalaccountsrenderedupontheterminationoftheirguardianshiprelation;

Any person who has been convicted of a crime involvingmoralturpitude;

Analien,except:

403

VOL.227,OCTOBER26,1993 403

Republic vs. Court of Appeals

A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative byconsanguinity;

One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his or herFilipinospouses;or

OnewhoismarriedtoaFilipinocitizenandseekstoadoptjointlywithhisorherspousearelativebyconsanguinityofthelatter.

(1)

(2)

(1)

Aliens not included in the foregoing exceptions may adoptFilipino children in accordance with the rules on inter­countryadoptionasmaybeprovidedbylaw.”

While JamesAnthony unquestionably is not permitted toadopt under any of the exceptional cases enumerated inparagraph (3) of the aforequoted article, Lenita, however,can qualify pursuant to paragraph (3)(a). The problem inher case lies, instead,withArticle185ofExecutiveOrderNo.209,expressing,asfollows:

“Art. 185. Husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in thefollowingcases:

Whenonespouseseeks toadopthisown illegitimate child;or

Whenonespouseseekstoadopt the legitimatechildof theother.”

LenitamaynotthusadoptalonesinceArticle185requiresa jointadoptionby thehusbandand thewife, a conditionthatmustbereadalongtogetherwithArticle184.

The old law on adoption, Presidential Decree No. 603(TheChildandYouthWelfareCode),exactlyadoptedthatfound in then Article 336 of the Civil Code. Article 29,SectionB,ChapterI,TitleII,ofthesaiddecreeprovided:

“Art. 29. Husband and wife may jointly adopt. In such case,parentalauthorityshallbeexercisedasifthechildweretheirownbynature.”

Observe that the law then in force used the word “may”under which regime, a joint adoption by the spouses wasapparently not made obligatory. The provision was lateramended, however, by Executive Order No. 91, dated 17December1986,ofPresident

404

404 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republic vs. Court of Appeals

CorazonC.Aquino.ThenewArticle29expressed,thus—

“Art. 29. Husband and Wife may jointly adopt. In such case,parentalauthorityshallbeexercisedasifthechildweretheirownbynature.

If one of the spouses is an alien, both husband andwife shalljointlyadopt.Otherwise,theadoptionshallnotbeallowed.”

AsamendedbyExecutiveOrder91,PresidentialDecreeNo.603, had thusmade itmandatory for both the spouses tojointlyadoptwhenoneofthemwasanalien.Thelawwassilentwhenbothspouseswereofthesamenationality.

TheFamilyCodehasresolvedanypossibleuncertainty.Article185 thereofnowexpresses thenecessity fora jointadoptionbythespousesexceptinonlytwoinstances—

Whenonespouseseekstoadopthisownillegitimatechild;or

(2) Whenonespouseseekstoadoptthelegitimatechildoftheother.

ItisintheforegoingcaseswhenArticle186oftheCode,onthesubjectofparentalauthority,canaptlyfindgovernance.

“Article186.Incasehusbandandwife jointlyadoptoronespouseadopts the legitimate child of the other, joint parental authorityshallbeexercisedbythespousesinaccordancewiththisCode.”

Therespondentcourt,inaffirmingthegrantofadoptionbythelowercourt,hastheorizedthatJamesAnthonyshouldmerely be considered a “nominal or formal party” in theproceedings. This view of the appellate court cannot besustained. Adoption creates a status that is closelyassimilated to legitimate paternity and filiation withcorrespondingrightsandduties thatnecessarily flowfromadoption, such as, but not necessarily confined to, theexerciseofparentalauthority,useofsurnameoftheadopterbytheadopted,aswellassupportandsuccessionalrights.These are matters that obviously cannot be consideredinconsequentialtotheparties.

We are not unmindful of the possible benefits,particularlyinthisinstance,thatanadoptioncanbringnotsomuchforthe

405

VOL.227,OCTOBER26,1993 405

Republic vs. Court of Appeals

prospective adopting parents as for the adopted childrenthemselves. We also realize that in proceedings of thisnature, paramount consideration is given to the physical,moral, social and intellectual welfare of the adopted forwhom the law on adoption has in the first place beendesigned. When, however, the law is clear and no otherchoiceisgiven,

1wemustobeyitsfullmandate.

Even then, we find it difficult to conclude this opinionwithout having to call the attention of the appropriateagencies concerned to theurgency of addressing the issueon inter­country adoption, a matter that evidently islikewise espoused by the Family Code (Article 184, lastparagraph,FamilyCode).

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and thedecision of the respondent court is REVERSED and SETASIDE.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

Feliciano (Chairman), Bidin, RomeroandMelo, JJ.,concur.

Petition granted; assailed decision reversed and set aside.

Note.—Thestatusofanillegitimatenaturalchild isnolonger recognized under the Family Code (People vs.Rafanan,182SCRA811).

——o0o——

_______________

1Atleastuntilsuchtimeasthe“rulesoninter­countryadoption”are

providedforbylawpursuanttoArticle184oftheFamilyCode.

406

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.