G.R. No. L-24006 November 25, 1967
JOSEFINA JUANA DE DIOS RAMIREZ MARCAIDA, petitioner-appellant, vs. LEONCIO V. AGLUBAT, in his capacity as Deputy Local Civil Registrar of Manila, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Prior to October 21, 1958, Maria Garnier Garreau, an 84-year-old resident of Madrid, Spain, initiated adoption proceedings before the Court of First Instance of Madrid to adopt Josefina Juana de Dios Ramirez Marcaida, a 55-year-old citizen of the Philippines and also a resident of Madrid. On October 21, 1958, the Spanish court granted the adoption application and authorized the execution of the corresponding adoption document in accordance with Article 177 of the Spanish Civil Code. Consequently, on November 29, 1958, a notarial deed of adoption (Escritura de Adopcion) was executed before a Notary Public in Madrid, embodying the court order and instituting the petitioner as the universal heir. This document was authenticated by the Philippine Vice Consul in Madrid on December 10, 1958. On January 15, 1959, the petitioner filed the authenticated deed with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila for registration. The Registrar refused to register it, contending that under Philippine law, adoption can only be effected through judicial proceedings, and a notarial document does not constitute such a proceeding. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her to file a mandamus petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which was dismissed on February 28, 1964. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Escritura de Adopcion (deed of adoption) executed and authenticated in Madrid, Spain, is registrable in the civil register of the Philippines.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and directed the Local Civil Registrar of Manila to register the deed of adoption. The Court held that:
1. Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code of the Philippines mandate the recording of acts, events, and judicial decrees concerning civil status, including adoptions, in the civil register. The use of the word “shall” indicates a compulsory command, with no limitation excluding foreign adoptions.
2. Article 409 of the Civil Code and Section 11 of Act 3753 (the Civil Registry Law), which refer to the duty of clerks of court to register adoption decrees, pertain specifically to adoptions effected in the Philippines and do not preclude the registration of foreign adoptions. The Court rejected the interpretation that only adoptions granted by Philippine courts are registrable, stating that such a limitation must be expressly provided by Congress and cannot be inferred by the courts.
3. The validity of the foreign adoption was not under attack, and no prejudice to the State, the adoptee, or any other person was shown. Article 15 of the Civil Code ensures that laws relating to family rights and status are binding upon Filipino citizens even abroad, while the incidents and effects of such foreign adoption remain subject to Philippine law.
4. Under private international law principles, a status of adoption created under the proper foreign law is entitled to recognition in another state, except where public policy dictates otherwise. The Court formulated the rule that an adoption created under the law of a foreign country is entitled to registration in the corresponding civil register of the Philippines, with the understanding that its effects shall be governed by Philippine laws.
The Supreme Court ordered the registration of the Escritura de Adopcion without costs.