Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

Teotico vs Del Val GR No.

L18753, March 26, 1965


FACTS:
Maria Mortera died on July 1955 leaving properties worth P600,000. She executed a
will written in Spanish, affixed her signature and acknowledged before Notary Public
by her and the witnesses. Among the legacies made in the will was the P20,000 for
Rene Teotico who was married to the testatrixs niece, Josefina Mortera. The
usufruct of Marias interest in the Calvo Building were left to the said spouses and
the ownership thereof was left in equal parts to her grandchildren, the legitimate
children of said spouses. Josefina was likewise instituted, as sole and universal heir
to all the remainder of her properties not otherwise disposed by will. Vicente
Teotico filed a petition for the probate of the will but was opposed by Ana del Val
Chan, claiming that she was an adopted child of Francisca (deceased sister of Maria)
and an acknowledged natural child of Jose (deceased brother of Maria), that said
will was not executed as required by law and that Maria as physically and mentally
incapable to execute the will at the time of its execution and was executed under
duress, threat, or influence of fear.
ISSUE: WON defendant has right to intervene in this proceeding.
HELD: It is a well-settled rule that in order that a person may be allowed to
intervene in a probate proceeding is that he must have an interest in the estate, will
or in the property to be affected by either as executor or as a claimant of the estate
and be benefited by such as an heir or one who has a claim against it as creditor.
Under the terms of the will, defendant has no right to intervene because she has no
such interest in the estate either as heir, executor or administrator because it did
not appear therein any provision designating her as heir/ legatee in any portion of
the estate. She could have acquired such right if she was a legal heir of the
deceased but she is not under the CIVIL CODE. Even if her allegations were true,
the law does not give her any right to succeed the estate of the deceased sister of
both Jose and Francisca because being an illegitimate child she is prohibited by law
from succeeding to the legitimate relatives of her natural father and that
relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter and adopted
and does not extend to the relatives of the adopting parents except only as
expressly provided by law. As a consequence, she is an heir of the adopter but not
of the relatives of the adopter.
Hence, defendant has no right to intervene either as testamentary or as legal heir in
the probate proceeding.
In Re Petition for Adoption of Michelle Lim and Michael Jude Lim GR No.
168992-93, May 21, 2009
FACTS: Monina Lim, petitioner, who was an optometrist was married with Primo Lim
but were childless. Minor children, were entrusted to them by Lucia, whose parents
were unknown as shown by a certification of DSWD. The spouses registered the
children making it appears as if they were the parents. Unfortunately, in 1998,
Primo died. She then married an American Citizen, Angel Olario in December 2000.

Petitioner decided to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty given under RA
8552 to individuals who simulated the birth of a child. In 2002, she filed separate
petitions for adoption of Michelle and Michael before the trial court. Michelle was
then 25 years old and already married and Michael was 18 years and seven months
old. Michelle and her husband including Michael and Olario gave their consent to
the adoption executed in an affidavit.

ISSUE: WON petitioner who has remarried can singly adopt.


HELD: Petition was denied. The time the petitions were filed, petitioner had already
remarried. Husband and wife shall jointly adopt except in 3 instances which was not
present in the case at bar. In case spouses jointly adopts, they shall jointly exercise
parental authority. The use of the word shall signifies that joint adoption of
husband and wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with the concept of joint
parental authority since the child to be adopted is elevated to the level of a
legitimate child, it is but natural to require spouses to adopt jointly. The affidavit of
consent given by Olario will not suffice since there are certain requirements that he
must comply as an American Citizen. He must meet the qualifications set forth in
Sec7 of RA8552. The requirements on residency and certification of the aliens
qualification to adopt cannot likewise be waived pursuant to Sec 7. Parental
authority is merely just one of the effects of legal adoption. It includes caring and
rearing the children for civic consciousness and efficiency and development of their
moral mental and physical character and well-being.
Republic vs CA and Bobiles GR No. 92326, January 24, 1992
FACTS: Zenaida Corteza Bobiles filed a petition to adopt Jason Condat who had
been living with her family since 4 months old. Salvador Condat, father of the child,
and the social worker assigned was served with copies of the order finding that the
petition was sufficient in form and substance. The copy was also posted on the
bulletin board of the court. Nobody appeared to oppose the petition. The judgment
declared that surname of the child be changed to Bobiles.
ISSUE: WON the petition to adopt Jason should be granted considering only Zenaida
filed the petition.
HELD: The petition for adoption was filed when the law applicable was PD 603
(Child and Youth Welfare Code), where such petition may be filed either of the
spouses or both of them. After the trial court rendered its favorable decision and
while the case was pending on appeal in CA, Family Code took effect where joint
adoption of both spouses is mandatory. 4
Non-joinder is not a ground for the dismissal of an action or a special proceeding.
The Family Code will have retrospective application if it will not prejudice or impair
vested rights. When Zenaida filed the petition, she was exercising her explicit and
unconditional right under said law in force at the time and thus vested and must not
be prejudiced. A petition must not be dismissed by reason of failure to comply with
law not yet in force and effect at the time. Furthermore, the affidavit of consent

attached by the husband showed that he actually joined his wife in adopting
Jayson. His declarations and subsequent confirmatory testimony in open court was
sufficient to make him a co-petitioner. Future of an innocent child must not be
compromised by arbitrary insistence of rigid adherence to procedural rules on the
form of the pleadings. Hence, Petition was denied.

Tamargo vs CA GR No. 85044, June 3, 1992


FACTS: In October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, minor, 10 years of age, shot Jennifer
Tamargo with an air rifle causing injuries that resulted in her death. The petitioners,
natural parents of Tamargo, filed a complaint for damages against the natural
parents of Adelberto with whom he was living the time of the tragic incident. In
December 1981, the spouses Rapisura filed a petition to adopt Adelberto Bundoc.
Such petition was granted on November 1982 after the tragic incident.
ISSUE: WON parental authority concerned may be given retroactive effect so as to
make adopting parents the indispensable parties in a damage case filed against the
adopted child where actual custody was lodged with the biological parents.
HELD: Parental liability is a natural or logical consequence of duties and
responsibilities of parents, their parental authority which includes instructing,
controlling and disciplining the child. In the case at bar, during the shooting
incident, parental authority over Adelberto was still lodged with the natural parents.
It follows that they are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages. Parents
and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child under their
parental authority in accordance with the civil code.
SC did not consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree of adoption
so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at the time when they
had no actual or physical custody over the adopted child. Retroactivity may be
essential if it permits accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the adopted
child. Under Article 35 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, parental authority is
provisionally vested in the adopting parents during the period of trial custody
however in this case, trial custody period either had not yet begin or had been
completed at the time of the shooting incident. Hence, actual custody was then
with the natural parents of Adelberto.

Potrebbero piacerti anche