GR L 20927; (July, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20927 July 26, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR ROSSANA E. CRUZ. ROSALINA E. CRUZ, petitioner and appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.
FACTS
Petitioner Rosalina E. Cruz, a childless 39-year-old resident of Zamboanga, filed a petition to adopt a minor child. Her husband, Francisco de la Cruz, gave his consent. The natural parents, Lucilo Bucoy and Ana E. Bucoy, also gave their written consent and testified in court, primarily because the petitioner (sister of Mrs. Bucoy) was childless while they had many children and limited income. The minor child was born on December 26, 1959, and recorded in the civil register as Rossana Esperat Bucoy. However, the child was baptized on September 19, 1960, as Rossana E. Cruz, using the surname of the petitioner, who had reared the child since birth. The court set the petition for hearing and directed publication of the notice once a week for three consecutive weeks in the “Zamboanga Times.” The published notice used the child’s baptismal name, Rossana E. Cruz, instead of her legally registered name, Rossana E. Bucoy.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City acquired jurisdiction over the adoption petition despite the published order of hearing using the child’s baptismal name (Rossana E. Cruz) instead of her name as recorded in the civil register (Rossana E. Bucoy).
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the petition for adoption. The Court held that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction due to a substantial defect in the publication. The legally recognized name of a person is the one recorded in the civil register, not the baptismal name. Since the published notice used the baptismal name instead of the official name, it constituted a failure of proper service by publication. Adoption is a proceeding in rem, and proper notice through publication using the correct, legally recorded name is essential to protect the interests of all concerned parties and to vest the court with jurisdiction. The dismissal was without prejudice to reinstituting the proceedings in conformity with law.