GR L 6294; (June, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6294; June 28, 1954
LUIS SANTOS-YÑIGO and LIGIA MIGUEL DE SANTOS-YÑIGO, petitioners-appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
On June 24, 1952, Luis Santos-Yñigo and his wife filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga for the adoption of the minor Marcial Eleuterio Resaba. The petitioners alleged that the minor’s legitimate parents had given their consent to the adoption in a document executed on March 20, 1950, and that since then, the petitioners had reared and cared for the minor as their own. They also claimed to be financially and morally capable of supporting and educating the minor. The Solicitor General filed an opposition, arguing that the petitioners were disqualified from adopting under the new Civil Code because they had two legitimate children of their own, a boy born on November 12, 1950, and a girl born on April 13, 1952. The lower court granted the petition, reasoning that the adoption agreement was executed before the new Civil Code took effect and that the old law (Rule 100 of the Rules of Court) did not prohibit adoption by persons with legitimate children. The Solicitor General appealed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners, who have two legitimate children of their own, are disqualified from adopting the minor under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the new Civil Code, and whether the adoption agreement executed prior to the effectivity of the new Civil Code confers an acquired right that should be respected.
RULING
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the lower court and denied the petition for adoption. The Court held that the prohibition under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the new Civil Code, which disqualifies persons with legitimate children from adopting, applies because the petition was filed on June 24, 1952, at which time the petitioners already had two legitimate children. The Court explained that the purpose of adoption is to provide childless persons with the consolation of having a child through legal fiction, and allowing adoption by those with children of their own could lead to family conflicts and friction. The Court rejected the argument that the adoption agreement executed on March 20, 1950, under the old Rules of Court (which did not contain such a prohibition), created an acquired right that would be impaired by the new Civil Code. It ruled that the only valid adoption is one made through judicial proceedings, and the mere agreement did not establish the legal relation of adoption. While sympathetic to the petitioners’ equitable plea, the Court emphasized its duty to apply the law as written.