G.R. No. L-36309 November 26, 1973
IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF THE MINOR LUIS ALBERTO MARTIN DE SANTOS, FREDERICK WILLIAM MALKINSON and ANA MARIE DE SANTOS MALKINSON, petitioners, vs. HON. CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA, Judge of the JUVENILE and DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF MANILA, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner-spouses, Frederick William Malkinson (an American citizen) and Ana Marie de Santos Malkinson (a Filipino citizen), filed a verified petition to adopt the minor Luis Alberto Martin de Santos. The child, born a Filipino citizen, is the acknowledged natural child of petitioner Ana Marie. The spouses averred that the child had been living with them in Manila since their marriage, that Frederick was gainfully employed, and that the adoption was for the child’s best interest, with petitioners possessing all qualifications and no disqualifications. The petition was initially given due course by a detailed judge, with hearing set and notices ordered.
Upon her return from leave, respondent Judge Corazon Juliano Agrava reviewed the petition and ordered its dismissal. She held that the petition was insufficient in substance because the petitioner-husband was an alien while the child was a Filipino citizen. She maintained her known view that a Filipino could not adopt an alien and vice versa. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing that no law prohibits a resident alien from adopting a Filipino absent specific disqualifications, but the motion was denied, prompting this appeal by certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether alienage, by itself, disqualifies a foreign national from adopting a Filipino child under the Civil Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal orders, reaffirming established jurisprudence. The legal logic is grounded on the plain language of the Civil Code. Article 334 provides that every person of age in full possession of civil rights may adopt. The specific disqualifications for aliens are enumerated in Article 335, which only bars aliens who are non-residents or who are residents of a country with which the Philippines has broken diplomatic relations. The law does not impose a general prohibition based on alienage alone, nor does it require that the adopter and the adopted be of the same nationality.
The Court, citing precedents like Therkelsen and Cathey, held that respondent judge erred in adding a disqualification not found in the statute. The purpose of adoption law is to promote the welfare of the child and provide homes for those needing parental care. Disqualifying a resident alien like petitioner-husband, who is not barred under Article 335, would contravene this compassionate objective. Furthermore, the adoption is particularly meritorious as petitioner-wife, the natural mother, is expressly authorized to adopt her own child under Article 338, and petitioner-husband, as stepfather, is also authorized to adopt his stepchild, thereby strengthening family solidarity. The Court directed respondent court to give due course to the petition and proceed with the hearing.