G.R. No. L-22523 September 29, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR, EDWIN VILLA Y MENDOZA. LUIS E. SANTOS, JR. and EDIPOLA V. SANTOS, petitioners-appellants, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

The spouses Luis E. Santos, Jr. and Edipola V. Santos filed a petition for the adoption of the minor Edwin Villa y Mendoza. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court dismissed the petition. The petitioners are both 32 years old, Filipinos, married since 1957, maintain their own conjugal home, and have no child of their own. The minor, Edwin Villa y Mendoza, is four years old, the legitimate child of Francisco Villa and Florencia Mendoza, who are also the parents of the petitioner-wife, Edipola Villa Santos. Thus, the minor is the legitimate younger brother of the petitioner-wife. The minor was sickly since birth, and his natural parents entrusted him to the petitioners, who reared him. A deep love developed between the petitioners and the child. The natural parents voluntarily gave their written consent to the adoption, understanding its legal consequences. The petitioners are financially capable, with a combined monthly income of approximately P900.00. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it would create an “incongruous situation” where the minor, the legitimate brother of the petitioner-wife, would also become her son by adoption.

ISSUE

Whether or not an elder sister may adopt a younger brother.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the lower court and granted the petition for adoption. The Court held that there is no provision in the law prohibiting relatives, by blood or affinity, from adopting one another. The Civil Code enumerates who may not adopt (Article 335) and who cannot be adopted (Article 339), and the petitioners and the minor are not among those prohibited. Article 338, which specifically allows the adoption of a natural child by the natural parent or of a step-child by a step-parent, was enacted to remove doubt in those specific cases where a relationship already exists, not to imply a general prohibition against adoption among other relatives. The alleged “incongruity” of a dual relationship (brother and son) is not a legal impediment. One relationship is by nature, the other by fiction of law. The relationship established by adoption is limited by law and does not generally extend to other relatives of the adopter. Furthermore, dual relationships also result from marriages between persons related within allowed degrees, which are permitted. Adoption statutes are humane and salutary, designed to provide homes for children, and should be construed to encourage adoption by persons who can properly rear them, with the interest and welfare of the child being paramount.