ADOPTION CASE DIGEST #7

In Re Adoption of Stephanie Garcia, GR No. 148311

March 31, 2005

Facts: Honorato B. Catindig filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child Stephanie Astorga Garcia. He averred that Stephanie was born on
June 26, 1994; that Stephanie had been using her mother’s middle name and surname; and that he is now a widower and qualified to be her
adopting parent. He prayed that Stephanie’s middle name be changed to Garcia, her mother’s surname, and that her surname “Garcia” be changed
to “Catindig” his surname.

The RTC granted the petition for adoption, and ordered that pursuant to article 189 of the Family Code, the minor shall be known as Stephanie
Nathy Catindig.

Honorato filed a motion for classification and/or reconsideration praying that Stephanie be allowed to use the surname of her natural mother
(Garcia) as her middle name. The lower court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration holding that there is no law or jurisprudence allowing
an adopted child to use the surname of his biological mother as his middle name.

Issue: Whether or not an illegitimate child may use the surname of her mother as her middle name when she is subsequently adopted by her
natural father.

Held:
One of the effects of adoption is that the adopted is deemed to be a legitimate child of the adapter for all intents and purposes pursuant to Article
189 of the Family Code and Section 17 of Article V of RA 8557.

Being a legitimate by virtue of her adoption, it follows that Stephanie is entitled to all the rights provided by law to a legitimate child without
discrimination of any kind, including the right to bear the surname of her father and her mother. This is consistent with the intention of the
members of the Civil Code and Family Law Committees. In fact, it is a Filipino custom that the initial or surname of the mother should immediately
precede the surname of the father.

ADOPTION CASE DIGEST #8

Landingin vs. Republic

GR No. 164948, June 27, 2006

(Special Proceedings – Adoption: Consent and Abandonment)

Facts: Diwata Ramos Landingin, a US citizen of Filipino parentage filed a petition for the adoption of 3 minors, natural children of Manuel Ramos,
the former’s brother, and Amelia Ramos. She alleged in her petition that when her brother died, the children were left to their paternal
grandmother for their biological mother went to Italy, re-married there and now has 2 children by her second marriage and no longer
communicates from the time she left up to the institution of the adoption. After the paternal grandmother passed away, the minors were being
supported by the petitioner and her children abroad and gave their written consent for their adoption.

A Social Worker of the DSWD submitted a Report recommending for the adoption and narrated that Amelia, the biological mother was consulted
with the adoption plan and after weighing the benefits of adoption to her children, she voluntarily consented.

However, petitioner failed to present the said social worker as witness and offer in evidence the voluntary consent of Amelia Ramos to the
adoption. Petitioner also failed to present any documentary evidence to prove that Amelia assent to the adoption.

Issue: WON a petition for adoption be granted without the written consent of the adoptee’s biological mother.

Held: No. Section 9, par (b) of RA 8552, provides that the consent of the biological parent(s) of the child, if known is necessary to the adoption. The
written consent of the legal guardian will suffice if the written consent of the biological parents cannot be obtained.

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.

The written consent of the biological parents is indispensable for the validity of the decree of adoption. Indeed, the natural right of a parent to his
child requires that his consent must be obtained before his parental rights and duties may be terminated and re-establish in adoptive parents. In
this case, petitioner failed to submit the written consent of Amelia Ramos to the adoption.

Moreover, abandonment means neglect and refusal to perform the filial and legal obligations of love and support. Merely permitting the child to
remain for a time undisturbed in the care of others is not such abandonment. To dispense with the requirements of consent, the abandonment
must be shown to have existed at the time of adoption.
ADOPTION CASE DIGEST #9

Madrinan vs. Madrinan

527 SCRA 487, GR No. 159374, July 12, 2007

(Special Proceedings – Court of Appeals and Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the family courts of Habeas Corpus involving custody
of minors)

Facts: Petitioner and respondent were married, and after a bitter quarrel, petitioner left the conjugal abode bringing with him their three sons (2 of
which are minors) to Albay and to Laguna subsequently.

Respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals for their their 2 minor sons on the ground that petitioner’s act disrupted their
education and deprived them of their mother’s care.

Petitioner filed a memorandum alleging that respondent was unfit to take custody of their children and questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals claiming that under Section 5(b) of RA 8369, family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for habeas
corpus filed by respondent.

The Court of Appeals rendered a decision asserting its authority to take cognizance and ruling, that under the Family Code, respondent was entitled
to custody of the minors.

Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the petition for habeas corpus and insists that jurisdiction over the case is lodged
in the family courts under RA 8369.

Issue: WON the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving custody of minors.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in a previous jurisprudence that The Court of Appeals should has cognizance of this case since there is nothing
in RA 8369 that revoked its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving the custody of minors. RA 8369 did not divest the Court of Appeals
and the Supreme Court of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving the custody of minors.

The concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court with family courts in said cases was further affirmed by A.M. No. 03-03-04-
SC (April 22, 2004) in Re: Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors which provides that:

Section 20. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. – A verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with the
Family Court. The writ shall be enforceable within its judicial region to which the Family Court belongs.

xxx xxx xxx

The petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or with any of its members and, if so granted, the writ shall be
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.