Republic v.

Hughes, GR 100835, 26 October 1993

G.R. No. 100835, October 26, 1993

REPUBLIC vs. CA and HUGHES

FACTS:

James Anthony Hughes, a natural born citizen of the United States of America, married Lenita Mabunay
Hughes, a Filipino Citizen, who herself was later naturalized as a citizen of that country. On 29 June
1990, the spouses jointly filed a petition with the RTC of Angeles City to adopt Ma. Cecilia, Neil and
Maria, all surnamed Mabunay, minor niece and nephews of Lenita, who had been living with the couple
even prior to the filing of the petition. The minors, as well as their parents, gave consent to the
adoption. On 29 November 1990, the RTC rendered a decision granting the petition. A petition for
Review onCertiorari was filed with this Court, assailing the trial court's decision. This Court referred the
case to the Court of Appeals which, on 09 July 1991, affirmed the trial court's decision.

ISSUE: W/N the spouses Anthony and Lenita Hughes are qualified to adopt the minor niece and nephews
of Lenita under Philippine law

HELD:

No, it is clear that James Anthony Hughes is not qualified to adopt under Article 184 of the Family Code
because he does not fall under any of the following exceptions enumerated in paragraph (3): (a) A
former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity; (b) One who seeks to adopt the
legitimate child of his or her Filipino spouse; or (c) One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to
adopt jointly with his or her Filipino spouse a relative by consanguinity of the latter. While James
Anthony unquestionably is not permitted to adopt, Lenita, however, can qualify pursuant to paragraph
(3)(a). The problem in her case lies, instead, with Article 185 of the Code, expressing as follows:

Art. 185. Husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in the following cases:

(1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or

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

Lenita may not thus adopt alone since Article 185 requires a joint adoption by the husband and the wife,
a condition that must be read along together with Article 184.

Executive Order No. 91, dated 17 December 1986, of President Corazon C. Aquino amended Article 29 of
PD 603 and is expressed as follows

Art. 29. Husband and wife may jointly adopt. In such case, parental authority shall be exercised as if the
child were their own by nature.

If one of the spouses is an alien, both husband and wife shall jointly adopt. Otherwise, the adoption shall
not be allowed.

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.
The Family Code has resolved any possible uncertainty. Article 185 thereof now expresses the necessity
for joint adoption by the spouses except in only two instances

(1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own legitimate child; or

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

The respondent court, in affirming the grant of adoption by the lower court, has theorized that James
Anthony should merely be considered a "nominal or formal party" in the proceedings. This view of the
appellate court cannot be sustained. Adoption creates a status that is closely assimilated to legitimate
paternity and filiation with corresponding rights and duties that necessarily flow from adoption, such as,
but not necessarily confined to, the exercise of parental authority, use of surname of the adopter by the
adopted, as well as support and successional rights. These are matters that obviously cannot be
considered inconsequential to the parties.

We are not unmindful of the possible benefits, particularly in this instance, that an adoption can bring
not so much for the prospective adopting parents as for the adopted children themselves. We also
realize that in proceedings of this nature, paramount consideration is given to the physical, moral, social
and intellectual welfare of the adopted for whom the law on adoption has in the first place been
designed.

Republic v. Toledano, GR 94147, 8 June 1994

Facts:

On February 21, 1990, Spouses Alvin Clouse, a natural-born US Citizen and Evelyn Clouse, a former
Filipino who became a naturalized US citizen, filed a petition to adopt Solomon Alcala, a minor who is
Evelyn's youngest brother. The trial court granted the petition. Republic, through the Office of the
Solicitor General appealed contending that the lower court erred in granting the petition for the spouses
are not qualified to adopt under Philippine Law.

Issue:

Whether or not Spouses Clouse are qualified to adopt

Held:

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.
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;

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

(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.

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.

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:

(1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or

(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.
Under the Family Code, joint adoption by husband and wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with the
concept of joint parental authority over the child, which is the ideal situation. As 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.

Note:

The alien husband can now adopt under Sec. 7 (b) of R.A. No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998).
The Supreme Court has held in several cases that when husband and wife are required to adopt jointly,
each one of them must be qualified to adopt in his or her own right. However, the American husband
must comply with the requirements of the law including the residency requirement of 3 years.
Otherwise, the adoption will not be allowed

Landingin v. Republic, GR 164948, 27 June 2006

FACTS: Diwata Ramos Landingin, a citizen of the United States of America (USA), of Filipino parentage
and a resident of Guam, USA, filed a petition for the adoption of minors Elaine Dizon Ramos, Elma Dizon
Ramos and Eugene Dizon Ramos who was born on. The minors are the natural children of Manuel
Ramos, petitioners brother (deceased), and Amelia Ramos- who went to Italy, re-married there and
now has two children by her second marriage and no longer communicated with her children .

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for adoption is invalid for lack of consent of the biological mother?

HELD:

No. The general requirement of consent and notice to the natural parents is intended to protect the
natural parental relationship from unwarranted interference by interlopers, and to insure the
opportunity to safeguard the best interests of the child in the manner of the proposed adoption. When
she filed her petition with the trial court, Rep. Act No. 8552 was already in effect. Section 9 thereof
provides that if the written consent of the biological parents cannot be obtained, the written consent of
the legal guardian of the minors will suffice. If, as claimed by petitioner, that the biological mother of the
minors had indeed abandoned them, she should, thus have adduced the written consent of their legal
guardian.

Republic v. Vergara, GR95551, 20 March 1997