In re: Adoption of Edwin Villa

Republic vs. CA Bobiles

Petition for review on certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals
Facts:
February 2, 1988 Zenaida Corteza Bobiles filed a petition to adopt Jason Condat ( years
old! "#o #ad been li$in% "it# t#e& since #e "as ' &ont#s old(
)obody appeared to oppose t#e petition so on *arc# 2+, 1998 t#e court #eld t#e trial and
rendered its decision to allo" Bobiles to adopt t#e c#ild(
,#e petitioner appealed to t#e Court of -ppeals statin% t#at t#e .,C erred in rulin% t#at t#e FC
could not be retroacti$ely applied to t#e adoption( ,#e Court of -ppeals rule in fa$our of Zenaida
Bobiles(
/etition for adoption "as filed of February 2, 1988 "#en t#e applicable la" "as still /0 )o(
+1 or t#e C#ild and 2out# 3elfare Code( ,#e Code only re4uired t#at t#e petition for adoption
be filed by eit#er spouse( -fter t#e trial court decided on t#e petition and "#ile it "as still on
appeal in t#e Court of -ppeals, t#e FC too5 effect on -u%ust 1, 1988( 6nder t#e FC, 7oint
adoption by t#e #usband and "ife is re4uired(
/etitioner contends t#at t#e court s#ould retroacti$ely apply t#e FC because *rs( Bobiles did
not ac4uire $ested ri%#ts to adopt Jason Condat by &ere filin% of #er petition( ,#e court, in
applyin% t#e FC retroacti$ely s#ould #a$e dis&issed t#e petition because it "as only filed by *rs(
Bobiles(
8ssues:
1( 39) t#e Court of -ppeals erred in rulin% t#at t#e FC could be applied retroacti$ely to t#e
petition for adoption )9
-rticle 2' of t#e FC states t#at t#e pro$ision of t#e code "ill only retroact so lon% as its
application "ill not pre7udice or i&pair $ested or ac4uired ri%#ts(
Zenaida filed t#e petition for adoption under t#e C#ild and 2out# 3elfare Code( ,#is code
allo"ed #er t#e ri%#t to file t#e petition alone( 6pon filin%, #er ri%#t to file and to recei$e a decision
in accordance "it# t#e la" at t#e ti&e "as already $ested(
,#e ri%#t cannot be pre7udiced by t#e enact&ent of a ne" la"(
- petition cannot be dis&issed for failin% to co&ply "it# a la" t#at "as not yet in force at t#e
ti&e it "as filed(
2( 39) t#e Court of -ppeals s#ould #a$e &odified t#e trial court:s decision by %rantin% t#e
adoption in fa$our of Zenaida alone and not bot# Zenaida and 0iscoro, since #e "as not a
petitioner( )9
0iscoro "as not a petitioner but #e sub&itted an affida$it of consent "#ic# "as attac#ed to t#e
petition and #is testi&ony in open court s#o"s t#at #e #i&self actually 7oined #is "ife in adoptin%
t#e c#ild(
-doption statutes as "ell as &atters of procedure leadin% up to t#e adoption s#ould be liberally
construed to carry out t#e beneficent purposes of t#e adoption institution( Future of a c#ild s#ould
not be co&pro&ised by arbitrary insistence of ri%id ad#erence to procedural for& of pleadin%s(
,#e tendency of &odern courts is to #old t#at t#ere need not be &ore t#an a substantial
co&pliance "it# statutory re4uire&ents to sustain t#e $alidity of suc# proceedin%s(
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner
$s
Honorable Rodolfo oledano !as .,C Jud%e" and #ps Clouse, respondents
$une %, &''(
Evel)n &arried natural born citizen of t#e 6; Alvin clouse in June ', 1981( ;#e #erself beca&e a
naturalized citizen in -u%ust 19, 1988( <er 12=year old youn%er brot#er, #olo*on Alcala, #as been
under t#eir care and custody since s#e %ot &arried (1981=198', 1989=ti&e of decision!( ,#e spouses
are no" atte&ptin% to adopt ;olo&on( ,#e &ot#er of >$elyn and ;olo&on, +er) Alcala #as %i$en
#er consent to suc# adoption since s#e cannot support and educate #er son due to po$erty( +ila
Cora,on (t#e social "or5er assi%ned to conduct t#e <o&e and C#ild ;tudy! also reco&&ended t#e
%rantin% of t#e petition for t#e adoption(
.,C %ranted t#e petition and #as publis#ed suc# order in a ne"spaper of %eneral circulation for 1
consecuti$e "ee5s "#en t#rou%# t#e 9;?, t#e petitioner, contends t#at t#e couple isn:t 4ualified to
adopt under t#e /#ilippine la"(
WON They are qualified to adopt under the Philippine law
+o. Art&%( of the -C states t#at t#e < is not 4ualified to adopt ;olo&on since #e is a natural born
citizen of t#e 6; "#o is tryin% to adopt a person neit#er #is relati$e nor a le%iti&ate c#ild of #is sps(
See A184.
>$en 3 is no lon%er a Filipino citizen "#en s#e tried to adopt #er brot#er in 199+( ;#e &ay appear to
be 4ualified to adopt #i& under par.!A" of A&%( but t#e petition cannot be %ranted in #er fa$or
"it#out $iolatin% A&%/ "#ic# reads t#at t#e #usband and "ife &ust 7ointly adopt e@cept in cases
"#erein t#e adoption conte&plated is t#at of ille%iti&ate c#ildren or le%iti&ate c#ildren of one sps(
Court furt#er said t#at t#is is clear fro& t#e #istorical e$olution of P0 12. (uses A< and 3 *a) adopt!
to E3 '& (uses shall! and t#e FC( ,#is is to protect t#e Filipino c#ildren "#o are put up for adoption
since t#e concept of 7oint parental aut#ority is t#e ideal situation( -lso, since t#e c#ild "ill be ele$ated
to t#e le$el of a le%iti&ate c#ild, it is only necessary to re4uire 7oint adoption "#ere #ar&ony bet"een
t#e sps can be insured( -s suc#, t#e Court &ust up#old t#e interest and "elfare of t#e c#ild to be
adopted as suc# are up#eld by t#e FC(
;ee &%1 -C as "ell, it "as cited lan% to s#o" t#at 7oint parental aut#ority "ill be reco%nized in cases
of adoption under A&%/.
Republic v. 4iller
/etition for re$ie" on certiorari of a decision of C-( 1999
F-C,;: Claude *iller, for&erly a &e&ber of t#e 6; -ir Force assi%ned at Clar5 -ir Base, and #is
"ife, Ju&rus *iller, bot# 6; citizens but residin% in -n%eles City, filed "B .,C a $erified petition to
adopt &inor *ic#ael *a%no *adaya%( /o$erty and deep concern for #is future pro&pted *ic#ael:s
natural parents to %i$e t#eir irre$ocable consent to t#e adoption( .,C %ranted petition for adoption
findin% petitioners to possess all t#e 4ualifications and none of t#e dis4ualifications for adoption(
*ic#ael "as freed fro& all obli%ation of obedience and support "B respect to natural parents( <e "as
t#en declared c#ild of t#e *illers by adoption( <is surna&e "as to be c#an%ed fro& A*adaya%C to
A*illerC(
8;;6>: 39) t#e Court &ay allo" aliens to adopt a Filipino c#ild despite t#e pro#ibition under FC,
effecti$e on -u% 1, 1988, "#en t#e petition for adoption "as filed before FC, on July 29, 1988, under
t#e pro$ision of t#e C#ild and 2out# 3elfare Code, "Bc allo"ed aliens to adopt(
<>D0: 2es( ,#e enact&ent of FC "ill not i&pair t#e ri%#t of alien respondents to adopt a Fil c#ild
because t#e rt #as beco&e $ested at t#e ti&e of filin% of t#e petition for adoption and s#all be
%o$erned by t#e la" t#en in force( - $ested rt is one "#ose e@istence, effecti$ity and e@tent does not
depend upon e$ents forei%n to t#e "ill of t#e #older(
,#e 7urisdiction of t#e court is deter&ined by t#e statute in force at t#e ti&e of t#e co&&ence&ent of
t#e action( -doption statues, bein% #u&ane and salutary, #old t#e interests and "elfare of t#e c#ild
to be of para&ount consideration( >$ery reasonable intend&ent s#ould be sustained to pro&ote and
fulfill t#e noble and co&passionate ob7ecti$es of t#e la"(
5a,atin vs. Ca*pos
#antos vs. Aran,anso
0epart*ent of #ocial 6elfare and 0evelop*ent vs. Belen 7$ul) &%, &''89
Ad*inistrative 4atter in the #upre*e Court
Facts:
,#e ad&inistrati$e co&plaint "as initiated by Corazon *( Dayu%, ;ocial 3elfare 9fficer 8E of
t#e 0epart&ent of ;ocial 3elfare and 0e$elop&ent (0;30!, Field 9ffice )o( 1 stationed in ;an
Fernando, Da 6nion, respondent Jud%e -ntonio *( Belen of t#e .e%ional ,rial Court, Branc# 18,
of Din%ayen, /an%asinan, is c#ar%ed "it# renderin% an erroneous decree of adoption in $iolation
of -rticle 11 of /residential 0ecree )o( +1, ot#er"ise 5no"n as F,#e C#ild and 2out# 3elfare
Code,F and t#e correspondin% ;upre&e Court circular t#ereon, na&ely, Circular )o( 12 dated
9ctober 2, 198(
0esiderio ;oriano and -urora Bernardo=;oriano, bot# of "#o& are naturalized -&erican
citizens, filed a $erified petition for adoption of t#eir niece, t#e &inor Z#edell Bernardo 8bea(
Jud%e based #is decree pri&arily on t#e Ffindin%s and reco&&endation of t#e 0;30 t#at t#e
adoptin% parents on t#e one #and and t#e adoptee on t#e ot#er #and #a$e already de$eloped
lo$e and e&otional attac#&ent and parentin% rules #a$e been de&onstrated to t#e &inor(F
findin%s and reco&&endations, as respondent 7ud%e asserted in #is 7ud%&ent, are contained
in t#e F-dopti$e <o&e ;tudy .eportF and FC#ild ;tudy .eportF prepared by t#e local office of t#e
0;30 t#rou%# respondent >l&a /( EedaG
3#en Z#edell Bernardo 8bea sou%#t to obtain t#e re4uisite tra$el clearance fro& t#e 0;30 in
order to 7oin #er adopti$e parents in t#e 6nited ;tates, t#e depart&ent unco$ered "#at it
considered as an ano&alous adoption decree re%ardin% said &inor( 8t turned out t#at t#e 0;30
did not #a$e any record in its files re%ardin% t#e adoption and t#at t#ere "as ne$er any order fro&
respondent 7ud%e for t#e 0;30 to conduct a F<o&e and C#ild ;tudy .eportF in t#e case(
Furt#er&ore, t#ere "as no directi$e fro& respondent 7ud%e for t#e social "elfare officer of t#e
lo"er court to coordinate "it# t#e 0;30 on t#e &atter of t#e re4uired reports for said &inorHs
adoption
,#e adoption ne$er passed t#rou%# t#e 0;30 and as suc# t#e ad&inistrati$e co&plaint "as
filed a%ainst Jud%e Belen(
Jud%e Belen e@plained t#at #e EedaGa to conduct t#e #o&e and case study, and t#ereafter
sub&it t#e re4uired reports t#ereon, precisely because t#e sa&e are a&on% #er duties under t#e
*anual for Cler5s of Court( ;ince t#ese functions "ere so pro$ided to be perfor&ed by #er, t#ere
"as no need for #i& to order said respondent social "elfare officer to coordinate "it# t#e 0;30
as #e assu&ed t#at it "as routine procedure for #er to do so(
Eendana on #er part said t#at t#ere ne$er "as any directi$e fro& Jud%e Belen to coordinate
"it# 0;30 concernin% t#e adoption( ;#e also denied as5in% for &oney fro& t#e adopti$e
parents(
8ssues:
1( 39) Jud%e Belen rendered t#e adoption decree in dero%ation of t#e pro$isions of -rticle 11 of
/0 +1 and of Circcular no( 12( 2>; ;,>.) 3-.)8)?
2( 39) EedaGa, failed to co&ply "it# t#e re4uire&ent in Circular )o( 12 t#at s#e s#ould #a$e
coordinated "it# t#e 0;30 in connection "it# t#e preparation of t#e #o&e and case study
reports( 2>; .>/.8*-)0>0
.atio:
-rticle 11 pro$ides: )o petition for adoption s#all be %ranted unless t#e 0epart&ent of ;ocial
3elfare, or t#e ;ocial 3or5 and Counsellin% 0i$ision, in case of Ju$enile and 0o&estic .elations
Courts, #as &ade a case study of t#e c#ild to be adopted, #is natural parents as "ell as t#e
prospecti$e adoptin% parents, and #as sub&itted its report and reco&&endations on t#e &atter to
t#e court #earin% suc# petition( ,#e 0epart&ent of ;ocial 3elfare s#all inter$ene on be#alf of t#e
c#ild if it finds, after suc# case study, t#at t#e petition s#ould be denied
Circular )o( 12 "as issued by t#e ;upre&e Court to ob$iate t#e &is#andlin% of adoption cases
by t#e 7ud%es( ,#e circular pro$ides:
(1! to )9,8F2 t#e *inistry of ;ocial ;er$ices and 0e$elop&ent, t#ru its local a%ency, of t#e filin%
of adoption cases or t#e pendency t#ereof "it# respect to t#ose cases already filedI
(2! to strictly C9*/D2 "it# t#e re4uire&ent in -rticle 11 of t#e aforesaid decree (
,#e ;taff -ssistant E( (;ocial 3or5er! of t#e .e%ional ,rial Courts, if any, s#all coordinate "it# t#e
*inistry of ;ocial ;er$ices and 0e$elop&ent representati$es in t#e preparation and sub&ittal of
suc# case study( ( (
,#e 7ud%e s#ould #a$e notified t#e 0;30 at t#e outset of t#e case so t#at t#e correspondin%
case study could #a$e been accordin%ly conducted( ,#e 0;30 is undoubtedly #as t#e
necessary co&petence, &ore t#an t#at possessed by t#e court social "elfare officer, to &a5e t#e
proper reco&&endation
Jud%e Belen s#ould ne$er #a$e &erely presu&ed t#at it "as routinary for t#e social "elfare
officer to coordinate "it# t#e 0;30 re%ardin% adoption proceedin%s(
Code of Judicial Conduct re4uires t#at a &a%istrate s#ould be t#e e&bodi&ent of, a&on%
ot#er desirable c#aracteristics, 7udicial co&petence( -&on% t#e pri&e duties to "#ic# a 7ud%e of
t#e la" &ust e$er be fait#ful is t#at of bein% abreast "it# t#e la" and 7urisprudence, since, as #as
so often been ad$anced, t#e ad&inistration of 7ustice re4uires t#e continuous study of la" and
7urisprudence
Eendana s#ould #a$e been a"are not only of t#e scope of #er duties and responsibilities but
t#at s#e s#ould #a$e li5e"ise been fa&iliar "it# current la"s, rules and re%ulations pertinent to
#er position as suc# social "elfare officer(
Jud%e Belen acted in %ood fait# "#en #e stated in #is decision t#at t#e 0;30 sub&itted t#e
re4uired reports to #is court t#rou%# respondent EedaGa, presu&ably in t#e belief t#at it "as
standard procedure for t#e ;ocial 3elfare 9fficer 88 of a .e%ional ,rial Court to do so in
coordination "it# t#e 0;30(
0uncan vs. C-I
Can: v. CA and Clavano
/etition for re$ie" on certiorari of a decision of C-( 1998
FACTS: Petitioner er!ert Can" and Anna #arie Cla$ano were %arried in 1&'(. They !e"ot three
c#ildren na&ely: Jeit#, C#ar&aine and Josep# -nt#ony( -nna *arie learned of <:s alle%ed
e@tra&arital affair "B fa&ily friend 3il&a ;oco and filed a petition for le%al separation "B ali&ony soon
after(
Ju$enile K 0o&estic .elations Court appro$ed &anifestation of t#e Can% sps pro$idin% t#at t#ey
a%reed to li$e separately and t#at < Can% pro$ide t#e c#ildren &ont#ly support of /#/1J(
<e left for t#e 6;, sou%#t di$orce fro& a )e$ada Court and "as issued a di$orce decree "Bc ordered
#i& to pro$ide anot#er 6;0L+B&o as support for #is 5ids and t#at also %ranted sole custody of t#e 1
&inor 5ids to -nna *arie( ,#ereafter, #e too5 an -&erican "ife and t#us beca&e a naturalized 6;
citizen( 8n 198, #e di$orced (a%ain! and ne$er re&arried(
8n 198M, resp=sps .onald Cla$ano, a business&an "#o tra$els a lot, and *aria Clara Cla$ano,an intl
fli%#t ste"ardess, bro K sis in=la" of -nna *arie, filed petition for adoption of t#e 1 &inor Can% 5ids
"B t#e si%nature of t#en 1'=yr old Jeit# si%nifyin% consent to #is adoption( *o& -nna *arie li5e"ise
filed an affida$it of consent alle%in% t#at < #ad e$aded to support t#e c#ildren( 8n li%#t of #er need to
%o to t#e 6; to attend to a fa&ily business, lea$in% t#e c#ildren to t#e respondents "ere &uc# better
in t#e interest of t#e c#ildren esp since t#ey "ere financially capable of supportin% t#e c#ildren(
*oreo$er, #er c#ildren "ere already attuned or close to t#e resps(
6pon learnin% of t#e petition, petitioner < i&&ediately returned to t#e /#ils and filed an opposition
t#ereto alle%in% t#at t#ou%# t#e resp=sps "ere &ore financially capable t#an #i&, #is A&ea%erC
finances s#ould not strip #i& of #is parental aut#ority o$er #is c#ildren(
.,C ruled t#at -nna *arie #ad in effect relin4uis#ed custody o$er t#e c#ildren and t#erefore, suc#
custody s#ould be transferred to t#e fat#er( 8n 199+, #o"e$er, .,C issued t#e petition for adoption to
t#e Cla$anos( 8ts reasons "ere t#e 5ids: close filial ties "B t#e Cla$ano fa&ily, t#at t#e latter "ere a
c#ildless couple and t#e c#ildren:s o"n &anifestation to be "B t#e& as &anifested in 5ids: snu%%lin%
close to t#eir uncle e$en t#ou%# t#eir natural &ot#er "as around(
8;;6>; K .-,89:
1( 39) &inor c#ildren be le%ally adopted "Bo t#e "ritten consent of a natural parent on t#e %round
t#at t#e latter #as abandoned t#e&
+3, not"it#standin% t#e a&end&ents to t#e la", t#e "ritten consent of t#e natural parent to t#e
adoption is indispensable and #as re&ained a re4uisite for its $alidity( )e$ert#eless, t#e
re4uire&ent of a "ritten consent can be dispensed "B 8F t#e parent #as abandoned t#e c#ild or
t#at suc# parent is insane or #opelessly inte&perate( ,#e Court &ay ac4uire 7urisdiction o$er t#e
case e$en "Bo t#e "ritten consent of t#e parents or one of t#e parents pro$ided t#at t#e petition
for adoption alle%es facts sufficient to "arrant e@e&ption fro& co&pliance t#ere"it#(
2( 3#at is abandon&ent in adoption cases and did < Can% abandon #is c#ildrenN
-bandon&ent &eans ne%lect or refusal to perfor& t#e natural and le%al obli%ations of care and
support "Bc parents o"e t#eir c#ildren( /#ysical estran%e&ent alone "Bo financial and &oral
desertion is not tanta&ount to abandon&ent(
+3( 8n t#e case, alt#ou%# petitioner "as p#ysically absent as #e "as t#en in t#e 6;, #e "as not
re&iss in #is natural and le%al obli%s of lo$e, care and support for #is c#ildren( <e &aintained
re%ular co&&unication "B #is 3 and c#ildren by "ay of letters and telep#one( <e used to send
pac5a%es by &ails and catered to t#eir "#i&s( -lt#ou%# t#ere "as so&e irre%ularity as re%ards
t#e ban5 account #e opened for #is c#ildren, #e did pre$iously intend and %a$e support to t#e&( 8t
"as only difficult for #i& to do so because of #is pre$ious status of ille%al alien in t#e 6;(
8t "as actually -nna *arie "#o left #er c#ildren to t#e care of #er relati$es to pursue #er business
abroad( ,#e adoption appears to be a &atter of con$enience for #er because s#e #erself "as
capable of supportin% #er o"n 5ids( 8t "as bad enou%# t#at t#eir fat#er left t#e c#ildren "#en #e
"ent abroad, but "#en t#e &ot#er follo"ed suit for #er o"n reasons, t#e situation "orsened(
-nd e$en t#ou%# t#e c#ildren are no" all %ro"n up: 2 of le%al a%e and one approac#in% 18, t#e
case &ust be deter&ined as of t#e ti&e t#e petition for adoption "as filed and as it "as filed "Bo
t#e re4uired consent of t#eir fat#er "#o by la" and under t#e %i$en facts #as not abandoned
t#e&(
<>D0: /etition for re$ie" on certiorari %ranted( Jud%&ent and resolution set aside(
4acario, Celso ; Aurelia all surna*ed A4AR<3, petitioners vs. C3=R 3- APPEA5#, Hon.
Ariston Rubio, RC, Victor ; Clara Bundoc, respondents
Petition for re$iew of CA de)i*ion
-acts:
9ct( 2+, 1982: 1+ yr old -delberto Bundoc s#ot Jennifer ,a&ar%o "Ban air rifle "Bc resulted in #er
deat#(
*acario ,a&ar%o, Jennifer:s adoptin% parent K sps Celso K -urelia ,a&ar%o, Jennifer:s natural
parents, filed a ci$il co&plaint for da&a%es a%ainst sps Eictor K Clara Bundoc, -delberto:s natural
parents "B"#o& #e "as li$in% at t#e ti&e of t#e incident(
Cri&inal case: -delberto ac4uitted for actin% "Bo discern&ent(
/rior to t#e incident or on 0ec( 1+, 1981, sps ;abas K Felisa .apisura filed a petition to adopt
-delberto suc# "as %ranted on )o$( 18, 1982(
Bundoc sps clai& t#at t#e .apisura sps s#ould be t#e proper parties in t#is suit since parental
aut#ority s#ifted to t#e adoptin% parent fro& t#e &o&ent t#e petition for adoption "as filed(
,a&ar%os clai& t#at since -delberto "as stayin% "Bt#e Bundocs at t#e ti&e of t#e incident, t#eir
parental aut#ority o$er t#e c#ild #ad not ceased(
,rial court: dis&issed petition clai&in% Bundocs "ere not proper parties( ,a&ar%os filed *F. but
denied for failure to %i$e notice to all parties 1 days before t#e #earin%( -ppeal "as li5e"ise
dis&issed for bein% filed out of ti&e(
C-: dis&issed( /etitioners lost t#eir rt to appeal(
Issues ; Ratio:
&. 63+ petitioners despite losin: their rt to appeal *a) still file this petition. > ?E#
;ince *F. did not co&ply "Bnotice re4uire&ent, it:s only considered pro for&a K it did not
interruptBsuspend re%le&entary period to appeal(
3#at:s &andatory is t#e ser$ice of &otion on t#e opposin% counsel indicatin% ti&e K place of
#earin%(
,ec#nical rules suspended in order t#at substantial 7ustice &ay be ser$ed( .ules of procedure
ou%#t not to be applied in a ri%id tec#nical sense( ,#ey:re only used to #elp secure not o$erride
substantial 7ustice( .i%id enforce&ent "ould defeat t#e ai&(
@. 63+ effects of adoption in so far as parental authorit) is concerned *a) be :iven
retroactive effect so as to *aAe the adoptin: parents the proper part) in a da*a:e suit
filed a:ainst their adopted child. > +3
)ot disputed t#at -delberto:s act %a$e rise to a cause of action on 4uasi=delict a%ainst #i&( CC
-rt( 21M: 3#oe$er by actBo&ission causes da&a%e to anot#er, t#ere bein% faultBne%li%ence, is
obli%ed to pay for t#e da&a%e done( ;uc# faultBne%li%ence if t#ere:s no pre=e@istin% contractual
relation bet parties is called a 4uasi=delict(
CC -.,( 218+: 9bli%ations under -rt( 21M are de&andable not only fro& one:s o"n
actsBo&issions but also for t#ose of persons for "#o& one is responsible( ,#e fat#er, K in case of
#is deat#Bincapacity, t#e &ot#er, are responsible for t#e da&a%es caused by t#e &inor c#ildren
"#o li$e in t#eir co&pany( .esponsibility "ill cease if t#ey pro$e t#at t#ey obser$ed all t#e
dili%ence of a %ood fat#er of a fa&ily to pre$ent da&a%e(
CC -rt( 218+ is fre4uently called as $icarious liability or t#e doctrine of i&puted ne%li%ence(
/arental liability is a naturalBlo%ical conse4uence of t#e parents: duties K responsibilities (includes
instructin%, controllin% K disciplinin% of c#ild!(
Ci$il liability is based on parental aut#ority $ested by CC upon parents( 8t assu&es t#at parents
"ere ne%li%ent in t#e perfor&ance of t#eir le%al K natural duty to super$ise t#e c#ild "#o:s in t#eir
custody K control( /resu&ption &ay be o$erturned by proof t#at t#ey e@ercised all dili%ence to
pre$ent da&a%e(
Bundoc sps #ad parental aut#ority o$er -delberto "#en incident occurred( 8t:s lo%ical t#at t#e
natural parents "#o #ad actual custody of t#e &inor are t#e proper parties to t#e suit for
da&a%es( But t#ey rely on C#ild K 2out# 3elfare Code, -rt( 1 "Bc pro$ides t#at a decree of
adoption s#all be effecti$e as of t#e date t#e ori%inal petition "as filed( Furt#er, t#ey rely on -rt( 19
of t#e sa&e code "Bc pro$ides t#at adoption s#all dissol$e t#e aut#ority $ested in t#e natural
parents e@cept "#ere adopter is sp of t#e sur$i$in% natural parent(
But CC pro$ides t#at t#e basis of parental liability for torts of a &inor c#ild is t#e relations#ip
e@istin% bet parents K &inor c#ild D8E8)? "it# t#e& K o$er "#o& la" presu&es t#e parents
e@ercise super$ision K control( -rt( L8 of t#e C#ild K 2out# 3elfare Code pro$ides t#at parents K
%uardian responsible for da&a%es caused by c#ild under t#eir parental aut#ority in accordance
"it# t#e CC( FC -rt( 221 li5e"ise pro$ides t#at parents are responsible for da&a%es K in7uries
caused by &inors li$in% in t#eir co&pany K under t#eir parental aut#ority(
.etroacti$ity &ay be allo"ed if it "ill per&it t#e accrual of benefitsBad$anta%es in fa$or of t#e
adopted c#ild( But it "on:t be proper to retroacti$ely apply a liability incurred "#en adoptin%
parents #ad no actual or p#ysical custody o$er t#e c#ild( 6nfair to burden t#e& "Bliability t#ey
could not #a$e foreseen or pre$ented esp in t#is case "#ere t#ey "ere in t#e 6; at t#e ti&e of t#e
incident( <oldin% t#e& liable "ould be inconsistent "Bt#e p#ilosop#y K policy underlyin% t#e
doctrine of $icarious liability(
-rt( 1L of t#e C#ild K 2out# 3elfare Code pro$ides t#at no petition for adoption s#all be finally
%ranted unless adoptin% parents are %i$en a super$ised trial custody period of at least &os to
assess t#eir readiness( 0urin% t#e period of trial custody, parental aut#ority s#all be $ested in
adoptin% parents( 8n t#is case, trial custody period #ad not yet be%un or #ad already been
co&pleted at t#e ti&e t#e incident too5 place( Besides, actual custody "as t#en "B#is natural
parents(
Held: /etition %ranted( C- re$ersed K set aside( Co&plaint reinstated K re&anded to t#e lo"er court
for furt#er proceedin%s(
#a)son vs. CA
$ohnston vs. Republic 7April .2, &'1.9
Appeal fro* a decision and order of the C3-I Ri,al
Facts:
June 2', 19+ = 8sabel Ealdes Jo#nston ('8 years old and &arried to .ay&ond -rt#ur
Jo#nston!, filed a petition for t#e adoption of one -na 8sabel <enriette -ntonio Concepcion
?eor%iana, 2 years and 1+ &ont#s old(
,#e dispositi$e portion of t#e decision pro$ided t#at t#e surna&e t#at s#ould be %i$en to t#e
adopted c#ild be Ealdes and not Jo#nston(
9ctober 2', 19+ = 8sabel Ealdes Jo#nston t#at t#e surna&e of t#e &inor be Ealdes Jo#nston
instead of Ealdes but #er &otion "as denied(
8ssue: 39) t#e surna&e of Ealdes Jo#nston s#ould be %i$en to t#e adopted c#ild( )9
.atio:
8sabel ar%ues t#at since s#e is no" usin% t#e surna&e of #er #usband by $irtue of -rticle 1M+,
par( 1 of t#e ne" Ci$il Code, and because t#at is t#e surna&e (Ealdes Jo#nston! s#e used in filin%
t#e petition in t#e present case, under "#ic# s#e testified at t#e ti&e of t#e trial, and under "#ic#
s#e is no" 5no"n to all #er relati$es, friends and ac4uaintances, s#e #ad to be 5no"n by #er
&aiden surna&e, and t#e lo"er court s#ould #a$e decreed t#at t#e &inor "#o& s#e adopted
s#ould be allo"ed to bear t#e surna&e s#e is no" usin%( ;#e also ar%ues t#at t#e use of t#e
surna&e FEaldesF by t#e adopted c#ild, as prescribed by t#e lo"er court, "ill create t#e
i&pression t#at s#e is t#e ille%iti&ate c#ild of petitioner=appellant be%otten before #er &arria%e, a
situation "#ic# is #u&iliatin% to bot# adopter and adopted(
,#e ;? ar%ues t#at 8sabel:s surna&e is Ealdes and not Jo#nstonI t#at a &arried "o&an #as a
surna&e of #er o"n to "#ic# &ay be added #er #usbandHs surna&e if s#e so c#oosesI t#at if t#e
&inor be per&itted to use t#e surna&e Ealdes Jo#nston, &uc# confusion "ould result because
t#e public "ould be &isled into belie$in% t#at s#e "as adopted by appellantHs #usband also, "#ic#
is not true in t#is case(
,#e court ruled t#at t#e pro$ision of la" (-rt( 1'1, par( ', Ci$il Code! "#ic# entitles t#e
adopted &inor to t#e use of t#e adopterHs surna&e, refers to t#e adopterHs o"n surna&e and not
to #er surna&e ac4uired by $irtue of &arria%e( 8sabelHs real surna&e is Ealdes and not Jo#nston,
and as s#e &ade t#e adoption sin%ly "it#out t#e concurrence of #er #usband, and not as a
&arried "o&an, #er na&e as adopter "as #er &aiden na&e( ,#e adoption created a personal
relations#ip bet"een t#e adopter and t#e adopted, and t#e consent of .ay&ond Jo#nston, 8sabel
EaldesH #usband, to t#e adoption by #er indi$idually, did not #a$e t#e effect of &a5in% #i& an
adoptin% fat#er, so as to entitle t#e c#ild to t#e use of Jo#nstonHs o"n surna&e(
,o allo" t#e &inor to adopt t#e surna&e of t#e #usband of t#e adopter, "ould &islead t#e
public into belie$in% t#at #e #ad also been adopted by t#e #usband, "#ic# is not t#e case( -nd
"#en later, 4uestions of successional ri%#ts arise, t#e #usbandHs consent to t#e adoption &i%#t be
presented to pro$e t#at #e #ad actually 7oined in t#e adoption(
Republic vs. 6on:
Republic v. CA and Caranto
/etition for re$ie" on certiorari of a decision of C-( 199
FACTS: +TC Ca$ite "ranted re*p* Caranto *p*, petition for adoption of #idael C #a-on alon" w.
prayer for t#e correction of t#e &inor:s first na&e A*idaelC "#ic# "as &ista5enly re%istered and
recorded in #is cert of birt# as A*ic#ael(C
8n t#e notice publis#ed in t#e ne"spaper, t#e notice stated t#e adoption of one A*ic#ael C( *azon(C
<e #as been stayin% "B t#e sps since #e "as M yrs old(
8;;6>; K .-,89:
1( ;ol?en opposed t#e petition insofar as it sou%#t t#e correction of t#e na&e of t#e c#ild fro&
A*idaelC to A*ic#aelC "Bc s#ould not be %ranted because t#e petition "as basically for adoptionI
t#at t#e correction of na&es cannot be effected in t#e sa&e proceedin% for adoption(
,#e error, t#ou%# concernin% only a clerical and innocuous error, could be corrected under .ule
1+8 in t#e sa&e proceedin% for adoption to pre$ent &ultiplicity of actions and incon$enience to t#e
petitioners(
2( -not#er contention is t#at t#e .,C did not ac4uire 7urisdiction o$er t#e pri$ate resps: petition for
adoption insofar as notice by publication did not state t#e true na&e of t#e &inor c#ild(
,#e correction in$ol$es &erely t#e substitution of t#e letters Ac#C for t#e AdC, so t#at "#at appears
as A*idaelC as %i$en na&e "ould read as A*ic#ael(C <ence t#e c#an%e cannot possibly cause
any confusion because bot# na&es can be read and pronounced "B t#e sa&e r#y&e (tu%&a! and
tone (tono,tuno%!( ,#e purpose of t#e publication re4uire&ent, "Bc is to %i$e notice to t#ose "#o
#a$e any ob7ections to t#e adoption s#ould &a5e it 5no"n, #as been ser$ed by publication of
notice in t#e case( <ence, .,C correctly %ranted petition for adoption(
<o"e$er, pursuant to .ule 1+8 ;ec ', t#e notice for correction of entry &ust also be publis#ed
(for 1 consec "5s in ne"spaper of %en circulation!( 3#ile t#ere "as notice %i$en by publication, it
"as only a notice for adoption( )ot#in% "as &entioned t#at in addition, t#e correction of #is na&e
in t#e ci$il re%istry "as also bein% sou%#t( ,#e local ci$il re%istrar, "#o "as not %i$en notice of t#e
proceedin%, "as t#us depri$ed of notice, and of t#e opportunity to be #eard bein% an
indispensable party "Bo "#o& no final deter&ination of t#e case )an !e had.
<>D0: Jud%&ent affir&ed "B &odification: by deletin% t#e decision of .,C orderin% local ci$il
re%istrar to c#an%e t#e na&e A*idaelC to A*ic#aelC in t#e birt# cert of t#e c#ild( <ence, adoption of
*idael C *azon affir&ed(
Republic vs. Hernande, 7-ebruar) ', &''19
Petition for Certiorari to re$iew a de)i*ion of +TC Pa*i"
-acts:
*arc# 1+, 199': Ean K .e%ina *unson (respondents! filed a petition to adopt Je$in >arl
Bartolo&e *oran alle%in% t#at t#ey "ere 4ualified K fit to be adopti$e parents( ,#ey li5e"ise filed
a petition to c#an%e c#ild:s 1
st
na&e to -aron Josep# -ndrade=*unson as t#is "as #is baptis&al
na&e K #e:s been called as suc# by #is adopti$e fa&ily e$er since #e arri$ed at t#eir residence(
.epublic of t#e /#ilippines: opposed clai&in% t#at petitions for adoption K petitions for c#an%e of
na&e s#ould be done in 2 separate proceedin%s(
.,C: appro$ed petition for adoption K %ranted c#an%e of 1
st
na&e clai&in% t#at no rts #a$e been
pre7udiced K since c#ild:s barely o$er 1 yr old, t#ere can be no i&&oral, cri&inalBillicit purpose for
see5in% c#an%e of na&e( .,C li5e"ise clai&s t#at it:s t#e ri%#t of t#e adopti$e parents to freely
select t#eir adopted c#ild:s first na&e(
.epublic appealed but it didn:t assail t#e fitness of t#e *unson sps to be adopti$e parents and t#e
$alidity of t#e adoption( ;ufficient proof t#at t#ey are 4ualified K t#at t#e co&plied "Bt#e
re4uire&ents(
1( petition for #earin% "as publis#ed 1@ in a ne"spaper of %en( circulation
2( t#ey:re financially able(
1( t#ey don:t #a$e cri&inalBdero%atory record
'( 0;30 reco&&ended le%al adoption findin% t#at t#e *unsons are reli%ious, responsible,
&ature, K friendly( ,#ey:re p#ysically #ealt#y, &entally fit, spiritually K financially capable(
,#ey pro$ided c#ild "B#is needs, s#ared t#eir ti&e, lo$e K attention to #i& K t#ey:re ready K
"illin% to continue pro$idin% #i& a #appy K secure #o&e life( C#ild is %ro"in% nor&ally K #ad
co&fortably settled in #is ne" #o&e( &os trial period created close bond bet t#e parties(
<o"e$er, petitioner still insists t#at c#an%e of na&e s#ould not be %ranted since
adoption K c#an%e of na&e are not related to eac# ot#er considerin% t#at t#ey:re %o$erned by
different sets of la" K rules( -doption %o$erned by FC 181=191 K .ules of Court (.9C! .ule 99
"#ile c#an%e of na&e is %o$erned by CC 1'=18+ K .9C .ule 1+1( -nd in t#is case, only t#e
adoption re4uire&ents #a$e been co&plied "it#( -doption only allo"s c#an%e of surna&e( .ule
s#ould be ad#ered to strictly by $irtue of ;tate:s natural interest in &aintainin% as syste& of
identification of its citizens K for t#e orderly ad&inistration of 7ustice(
.espondents on t#e ot#er #and clai& t#at .9C .ule 2, ;ec( L allo"s per&issi$e
7oinder of causes of action to a$oid &ultiplicity of suits in order to discoura%e prolon%ed K
$e@atious liti%ations and t#at t#ey #a$e co&plied "Bt#e re4uire&ents of t#is rule (7urisdiction of
court, proper $enue K 7oinder of parties!( ,#ey clai& t#at rules don:t pro#ibit 7oinder of adoption K
c#an%e of na&e( ,#eir only reason for c#an%e of na&e: upon %rant of adoption, adoptee assu&ed
ip*o fa)to a ne" identification K desi%nation K -aron Josep# "as na&e %i$en durin% baptis&(
,#ey clai& t#at c#an%e &erely confir&s desi%nation by "Bc #e:s 5no"n K called in co&&unity in
"Bc #e li$es(
Issues ; Ratio:
&. 63+ RC erred in :rantin: chan:e of re:istered properB:iven na*e of child>?E#
FC 189 allo"s as &atter of rt K obli%ation and as natural K necessary conse4uence of adoption
t#e adoptee to bear adopter:s surna&e e$en if latter does not pray for it( <o"e$er, it does not
confer upon t#e adopter a license to c#an%e adoptee:s re%istered first na&e( 8t &ust re&ain as it
"as ori%inally re%istered in t#e ci$il re%ister( 8t:s not a &re incidentBad7unct of an adoption
proceedin%( 8nsertin% suc# prayer in a petition for adoption cannot be %ranted( .e%istered na&e
re&ains until court orders ot#er"ise, it s#ould co&e "Ba 7udicial order(
C#an%e of na&e is %o$erned by .9C .ule 1+1 "#erein sufficiency of reasonsB%rounds is
deter&ined( /etition s#ould be filed "B.,C "#ere person desirin% to c#an%e na&e resides( <e
s#ould be a resident of t#at pro$ince for at lest 1 yrs( 0ate K place of #earin% s#ould be publis#ed(
9nly %ranted if alle%ations are pro$en true K causes are reasonable( ?rant s#ould be recorded
"Bproper ci$il re%ister( ,#is is an independent K separate special proceedin% %o$erned by its o"n
set of rules( 8t can:t be %ranted by &eans of any ot#er proceedin%(
Joinder of causes of action &eans unitin% 2 or &ore de&and or rts of action in one action( 8t:s t#e
union of 2 or &ore ci$il causes( ItCs per*issive ; not *andator). 8t ai&s to a$oid &ultiplicity of
suits K to pro&ote efficient ad&inistration of 7ustice "Bo pre7udice to rts of liti%ants K to e@pedite
liti%ation at &ini&u& cost( ,#ey:re liberally construed( .9C .ule 2 ;ec( L re4uires t#at 7oinder "ill
not $iolate rules on 7urisdiction, $enue K 7oinder of parties and t#at cause of action arise out of
sa&e contract, transaction or relation bet parties or for &oney de&ands or of sa*e nature ;
character( Allowed when thereCs so*e substantial unit) between causes D unit) in the
proble* ; co**on Eues of law ; fact involved(
;C findin%s: petitions don:t &eet test of conceptual unity de&anded to allo" t#eir 7oinder under
;C:s rules( ;ol ?en "as correct in sayin% t#at adoption assesses adopter:s fitness K 4ualifications
"#ile in a c#an%e of na&e, propriety K reasonableness of %rounds supportin% proposed c#an%e of
na&e is ascertained "Bo creatin%Baffectin% fa&ily relations( ;o 3., petition for c#an%e of na&e,
t#e action instituted "as %rossly insufficient in for& K substance( ;uitsBactions "#ose sub7
&attersBcorrespondin% reliefs are unrelatedBdi$erse are best ta5en up indi$idually(
/rocedural rules are not to be disdained as &ere tec#nicalities t#at &ay be i%nored at "ill to suit
party:s con$enience( ,#ey:re i&pt in ensurin% effecti$e enforce&ent of substanti$e rts t#ru orderly
K speedy ad&inistration of 7ustice( ,#ey s#ould only be rela@ed in $ery e@tre&e circu&stances
"#en ri%id application "ould frustrate rat#er t#an pro&ote substantial 7ustice( 8n t#is case, no
in7ustice "ill be done by follo"in% t#e re%le&entary procedure set out for c#an%e in properB%i$en
na&e( ,#e ;tate stands to be pre7udiced by disre%ardin% .ule 1+1(
.espondent 7ud%e e@ceeded #is prero%ati$es by renderin% assailed decision "Bc is unsupported
by bot# statutory K case la"(
@. 63+ there was a lawful :round for the chan:e of na*e > +3
)o le%alB7urisprudential basis for .,C:s rulin%(
)a&e: co&bination of "ords by "Bc a person:s 5no"n K identified K distin%uis#ed fr ot#ers for
"orld:s con$enience in addressin%Bdealin% "B#i&( ,"o parts: %i$enBproper na&e O surna&eBfa&ily
na&e( For&er is c#osen by parents, latter fi@ed by la"(
CC '+8: person:s birt# &ust be entered in ci$il re%ister( 9fficial na&e K na&e in t#e eyes of la" is
t#e one %i$en in t#e ci$il re%ister(
CC 1M: )o person can c#an%e #is na&eBsurna&e "Bo 7udicial aut#ority pre&ised on t#e interest
of ;tate for purposes of identification(
C#an%e of na&e can only be done under .ule 1+1 of .9C i&ple&entin% CC 1M( 8t:s a pri$ile%e
K not a rt "Bc is based on t#e court:s discretion( /roper K reasonable cause s#ould be %i$en to
7ustify c#an%e( ;o&e proper reasons reco%nized by 7urisprudence:
1( na&e:s ridiculous, dis#onorable or e@tre&ely difficult to "riteBpronounce
2( c#an%e results as le%al conse4uence of le%iti&ationBadoption
1( c#an%e "ill a$oid confusion
'( continuous use K #as been 5no"n since c#ild#ood by a Filipino na&e K una"are of alien
parenta%e
L( c#an%e is based on sincere desire to adopt a Filipino na&e to erase si%ns of for&er aliena%e
in %ood fait# K "Bo pre7udice to anyone
( surna&e causes e&barrass&ent K not for fraudulent purpose K "Bo pre7udice to public interest
Baptis& K fact t#at one #as been usin% a different na&e K #as been 5no"n by it are not
proper K reasonable causes to le%ally aut#orize to c#an%e na&e( 9t#er na&es not entered "it#
t#e ci$il re%ister are unofficial K can:t be reco%nized as person:s real na&e(
,#us, %rounds raised by respondents are not proper( ,#e Court is concerned "Bfactual
realities K le%al conse4uences rat#er t#an senti&entality K sy&bolis&s( Case cited is not
applicable eit#er since it in$ol$es c#an%e in surna&e based on e&barrass&ent caused by suc#(
;ol ?en "as correct in sayin% t#at an instance "#ere natural parent na&es a c#ild for t#e first
ti&e is different fro& instance "#ere adopti$e parents "is# to disre%ard K c#an%e a c#ild:s na&e
%i$en by t#e natural parents( For&er is proper "#ereas latter is not since t#e ri%#t to na&e a c#ild
#as already been e@ercised by t#e natural parents( 9f course, adopti$e parents #a$e t#e pri$ile%e
to c#an%e properB%i$en na&e, only suc# &ust be done in a proper petition for c#an%e of na&e(
Held: *odified( C#ild "ill be 5no"n as Je$in >arl -ndrade *unson unless later on c#an%ed in
accordance "Bla"( 9t#er aspects, .,C affir&ed(
0e*pse) vs. RC
#antos vs. CA