GR L 9911; (May, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9911; May 22, 1957
In the matter of the adoption of the minor MARIETTA DURANG-PARANG. PRISCILA DURANG-PARANG JIMENEZ, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
On April 4, 1955, Priscilla Durang-Parang Jimenez filed a petition for the adoption of her natural child, Marietta Durang-Parang, an 11-year-old minor. The petitioner has no legitimate, legitimated, acknowledged natural children, or natural children by legal fiction. The minor Marietta is her only child, whom she has reared and cared for since childhood. The petitioner is married, and her husband consented to the adoption. The Solicitor General intervened, filing a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the child, as stated in the petition, was enjoying the status of an acknowledged natural child, and her adoption would violate Article 335(1) of the New Civil Code and be repugnant to the philosophy of adoption laws. The petitioner opposed, arguing that her allegation of rearing the child did not vest the status of an acknowledged natural child and that Article 335(1) prohibits those who already have such children from adopting another. The court did not act on the motion but heard the case on the merits and granted the petition, leading to the Solicitor General’s appeal.
ISSUE
Whether a natural parent can legally adopt her own acknowledged natural child, given the provisions of the New Civil Code, specifically Article 335(1) and Article 338(1).
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision granting the petition for adoption. The Court held that Article 335(1), which prohibits persons with legitimate, legitimated, acknowledged natural children, or natural children by legal fiction from adopting, does not apply because the petitioner has only one child—the minor she seeks to adopt—and no other children of the categories mentioned. The Court further held that Article 338(1) clearly allows the adoption of a natural child by the natural father or mother to enable the parents to make amends and raise the child to the status of a legitimate child. The appellant’s contention that an acknowledged natural child cannot be adopted due to existing successional rights was dismissed as untenable in light of the explicit provision and purpose of Article 338(1). The decision was affirmed without costs.