VOL.233,JUNE8,1994 9

Republic vs. Toledano

G.R.No.94147.June8,1994.*

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.HONORABLERODOLFOTOLEDANO, inhiscapacityasPresidingJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourt,ThirdJudicialRegion,Branch69,Iba,ZambalesandSPOUSESALVINA.CLOUSEandEVELYNA.CLOUSE,respondents.

Civil Law; Adoption; Under the Family Code of thePhilippines, private respondents spouses Clouse are clearly barredfrom adopting Solomon Joseph Alcala.—Under Articles 184 and185 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 209, otherwise known as “TheFamilyCodeofthePhilippines”,privaterespondentsspousesClouseareclearlybarredfromadoptingSolomonJosephAlcala.

Same; Same; Article 185 requires a joint adoption by thehusband and wife.—Article 185 requires a joint adoption by thehusband and wife, a condition that must be read along togetherwithArticle184.

Same; Same; Same; Joint adoption by husband and wife ismandatory.—Under the said new law, joint adoption by husbandandwife ismandatory. This is in consonance with the concept ofjointparentalauthorityover thechildwhich is the idealsituation.As the child to be adopted is elevated to the level of a legitimatechild, it is butnatural to require the spouses to adopt jointly.Therulealsoinsuresharmonybetweenthespouses.

Same; Same; Adoption is geared more towards the promotion ofthe welfare of the child and enhancement of his opportunities for auseful and happy life.—Wearenotunawarethatthemoderntrendis to encourage adoption and every reasonable intendment shouldbe sustained to promote that objective. Adoption is geared moretowardsthepromotionofthewelfareofthechildandenhancementof his opportunities for a useful and happy life. It is not thebureaucratic technicalitiesbut the interestof thechild thatshouldbe the principal criterion in adoption cases. Executive Order 209likewise upholds that the interest and welfare of the child to beadoptedshouldbetheparamountconsideration.

_______________

*SECONDDIVISION.

10

10 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republic vs. Toledano

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofIba,Zambales,Br.69.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.The Solicitor Generalforpetitioner.R.M. Blancoforprivaterespondents.

PUNO,J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of thedecision

1 of the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales,

Branch69, inSpecialProceedingNo.RTC­140­I, entitled,“IntheMatteroftheAdoptionoftheMinornamedSolomonJosephAlcala”,raisingapurequestionoflaw.

The sole issue for determination concerns the right ofprivaterespondentsspousesAlvinA.ClouseandEvelynA.ClousewhoarealienstoadoptunderPhilippineLaw.Thereisnocontroversyastothefacts.

OnFebruary21,1990,inaverifiedpetitionfiledbeforethe Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales, privaterespondents spouses Clouse sought to adopt the minor,Solomon Joseph Alcala, the younger brother of privaterespondentEvelynA.Clouse.InanOrderissuedonMarch12,1990,thepetitionwassetforhearingonApril18,1990.The said Order was published in a newspaper of generalcirculation in the province of Zambales and City ofOlongapoforthree(3)consecutiveweeks.

Theprincipal evidencedisclose thatprivate respondentAlvin A. Clouse is a natural born citizen of the UnitedStatesofAmerica.HemarriedEvelyn,aFilipinoonJune4,1981atOlongapoCity.OnAugust19,1988,Evelynbecamea naturalized citizen of the United States of America inGuam. They are physically, mentally, morally, andfinanciallycapableofadoptingSolomon,atwelve(12)yearoldminor.

Since1981 to1984, then fromNovember2,1989up tothepresent,SolomonJosephAlcalawasandhasbeenunderthecareandcustodyofprivaterespondents.Solomongavehis consent to the adoption. His mother, Nery Alcala, awidow,likewisecon­

_______________

1HonorableRodolfoV.Toledano,PresidingJudge.

11

VOL.233,JUNE8,1994 11

Republic vs. Toledano

sented to the adoption due to poverty and inability tosupportandeducateherson.

Mrs.NilaCorazonPronda,thesocialworkerassignedtoconducttheHomeandChildStudy,favorablyrecommendedthegrantingofthepetitionforadoption.

Finding that private respondents have all the

(a)

(b)

qualificationsandnoneofthedisqualificationsprovidedbylawandthattheadoptionwillredoundtothebestinterestand welfare of the minor, respondent judge rendered adecisiononJune20,1990,disposingasfollows:

“WHEREFORE,theCourtgrantsthepetition foradoption filedbySpousesAlvinA.ClouseandEvelynA.Clouseanddecreesthatthesaidminorbe consideredas their childbyadoption.To this effect,the Court gives theminor the rights and duties as the legitimatechild of the petitioners. Henceforth, he shall be known asSOLOMONALCALACLOUSE.

The Court dissolves parental authority bestowed upon hisnatural parents and vests parental authority to the hereinpetitionersandmakeshimtheirlegalheir.PursuanttoArticle36ofP.D.603asamended,thedecreeofadoptionshallbeeffectiveasofthedatewhenthepetitionwasfiled.InaccordancewithArticle53of the same decree, let this decree of adoption be recorded in thecorresponding government agency, particularly the Office of theLocal Civil Registrar ofMerida, Leytewhere theminorwas born.ThesaidofficeoftheLocalCivilRegistrarisherebydirectedtoissuean amended certificate of live birth to the minor adopted by thepetitioners.

Let copies of this decision be furnished (sic) the petitioners,DSWD, Zambales Branch, Office of the Solicitor General and theOfficeoftheLocalCivilRegistrarofMerida,Leyte.

SOORDERED.”2

Petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor Generalappealedtousforrelief,contending:

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITIONFORADOPTIONOFALVINANDEVELYNCLOUSE,BECAUSETHEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO ADOPT UNDER PHILIPPINELAW.”

_______________

2Rollo,RTCDecision,pp.28­29.

12

12 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republic vs. Toledano

Weruleforpetitioner.UnderArticles184and185ofExecutiveOrder(E.O.)No.

209, otherwise known as “The Family Code of thePhilippines”,privaterespondentsspousesClouseareclearlybarredfromadoptingSolomonJosephAlcala.

Article 184, paragraph (3) of Executive Order No. 209expresslyenumeratesthepersonswhoarenotqualifiedtoadopt,viz:

“(3)Analien,except:

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

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

(c)

(1)

(2)

OnewhoismarriedtoaFilipinocitizenandseekstoadoptjointlywithhisorherspousearelativebyconsanguinityofthelatter.

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

TherecanbenoquestionthatprivaterespondentAlvinA.Clouse is not qualified to adopt Solomon Joseph Alcalaunder any of the exceptional cases in the aforequotedprovision. In the first place, he is not a former Filipinocitizen but a natural born citizen of theUnited States ofAmerica. In the second place, Solomon Joseph Alcala isneither his relative by consanguinity nor the legitimatechild of his spouse. In the third place, when privaterespondents spouses Clouse jointly filed the petition toadoptSolomonJosephAlcalaonFebruary21,1990,privaterespondent Evelyn A. Clouse was no longer a Filipinocitizen. She lost her Filipino citizenship when she wasnaturalizedasacitizenoftheUnitedStatesin1988.

PrivaterespondentEvelynA.Clouse,ontheotherhand,mayappeartoqualifypursuanttoparagraph3(a)ofArticle184 of E.0. 209. She was a former Filipino citizen. Shesought to adopt her younger brother. Unfortunately, thepetition foradoptioncannotbegranted inher favoralonewithout violating Article 185 which mandates a jointadoptionbythehusbandandwife.Itreads:

13

VOL.233,JUNE8,1994 13

Republic vs. Toledano

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

Whenonespouseseeks toadopthisown illegitimate child;or

Whenonespouseseekstoadopt the legitimatechildof theother.”

Article 185 requires a joint adoption by the husband andwife, a condition that must be read along together withArticle184.

3

The historical evolution of this provision is clear.Presidential Decree 603 (The Child and Youth WelfareCode),providesthathusbandandwife“may”jointlyadopt.

4

Executive Order No. 91 issued on December 17, 1986amendedsaidprovisionofP.D.603. Itdemands thatbothhusbandandwife“shall”jointlyadoptifoneofthemisanalien.

5ItwassocraftedtoprotectFilipinochildrenwhoare

putupforadoption.TheFamilyCodereiteratedtherulebyrequiring that husband and wife “must” jointly adopt,except in the casesmentionedbefore.Under the saidnewlaw,jointadoptionbyhusbandandwifeismandatory.

6This

isinconsonancewiththeconceptofjointparentalauthorityoverthechildwhichistheidealsituation.

7Asthechildtobe

adoptediselevatedtothelevelofalegitimatechild,itisbut

(1)

(2)

naturaltorequirethespousestoadoptjointly.Therulealsoinsuresharmonybetweenthespouses.

8

_______________

3RepublicofthePhilippinesvs.TheHonorableCourtofAppeals,et

al.,G.R.No.100835,October26,1993.4P.D. 603,Article 29.Husbandandwifemay jointly adopt. In such

case,parentalauthorityshallbeexercisedasifthechildweretheirown

bynature.5 E.O. No. 91, Article 29. Husband and wife may jointly adopt. In

such case, parental authority shall be exercised as if the child were

theirownbynature.

Ifoneofthespousesisanalien,bothhusbandandwifeshall jointly

adopt.Otherwise,theadoptionshallnotbeallowed.6 Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92326, 205 SCRA 356,

January24,1992.7 Sempio­Dy, Alicia V., Handbook on the Family Code of the

Philippines,1991,p.262.8Vitug,JoseC.,J.,CompendiumofCivilLawandJurisprudence,

14

14 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republic vs. Toledano

Inadistinctlysimilarcase,weheld:

As amended by Executive Order 91, Presidential Decree No. 603,had thusmade itmandatory for both the spouses to jointly adoptwhen one of them was an alien. The law was silent when bothspouseswereofthesamenationality.

TheFamilyCodehas resolved any possible uncertainty.Article185 thereof expresses the necessity for a joint adoption by thespousesexceptinonlytwoinstances—

Whenonespouseseeks toadopthisown illegitimate child;or

Whenonespouseseekstoadopt the legitimatechildof theother.

ItisintheforegoingcaseswhenArticle186oftheCode,ontheparentalauthority,canaptlyfindgovernance.

Article186.Incasehusbandandwifejointlyadoptoronespouseadopts

the legitimate child of the other, joint parental authority shall be

exercisedbythespousesinaccordancewiththisCode.”9

Article185 isall too clearandcategoricaland there isnoroom for its interpretation. There is only room forapplication.

10

We are not unaware that the modern trend is toencourage adoption and every reasonable intendmentshouldbesustainedtopromotethatobjective.

11Adoptionis

geared more towards the promotion of the welfare of thechildandenhancementofhisopportunitiesforausefulandhappylife.

12Itisnotthebureaucratictechnicalitiesbutthe

interestofthechildthatshouldbetheprincipalcriterioninadoptioncases.

13ExecutiveOrder209likewiseupholdsthat

theinterestandwelfareofthechildtobe

_______________

1993Edition,p.234.9Supra.,pp.4­5.10Cebu PortlandCementCompany vs.Municipality ofNaga, Cebu,

Nos.24116­17,24SCRA708,August22,1968.11 Santos, et al. vs. Aranzanso, et al., No. L­23828, 16 SCRA 344,

February28,1966.12Daoang vs.Municipal Judge of SanNicolas, IlocosNorte, No. L­

34568,159SCRA369,March28,1988.13DeTaveravs.Cacdac,Jr.,No.L­76290,167SCRA636,Novem­ber

23,1988.

15

VOL.233,JUNE8,1994 15

People vs. Ibay

adopted should be the paramount consideration. Theseconsiderations notwithstanding, the records of the case donot evince any fact as would justify us in allowing theadoption of theminor, Solomon JosephAlcala, by privaterespondentswhoarealiens.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.ThedecisionofthelowercourtisREVERSEDandSETASIDE.Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

Narvasa (C.J.), PadillaandRegalado, JJ.,concur.

Petition granted. Decision reversed and set aside.

Note.—Where the minor has been legally adopted bypetitionersandadecreeofadoptiondissolvedtheauthorityof the natural parents over the adopted child, parentalauthority over theadopted child shall be exercised jointlybybothspouses(Cervantes vs. Fajardo,169SCRA575).

——o0o——

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