Santos vs Republic Petitioner Santos spouses seek to adopt the 4-year old sickly brother of the wife.

It was established that the petitioners are both 32 years of age and have maintained a con ugal home of their own. !hey do not have a child of their own blood nor has any one of them been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. "uis #. Santos$ %r.$ is a lawyer$ with business interests in a te&tile development enterprise and the I'( electric plant$ and is the general manager of )edry Inc. and the secretary-treasurer of 'earen #nterprises. *is copetitioner-wife is a nurse by profession. !he parents of the child testified that they entrusted him to the petitioners who reared and brought him up. Issue+ ,an a sister adopt her own brotherHeld+ (rticle 33. of the ,ivil ,ode enumerates those persons who may not adopt$ and it has been shown that petitioners-appellants herein are not among those prohibited from adopting. (rticle 33/ of the same code names those who cannot be adopted$ and the minor child whose adoption is under consideration$ is not one of those e&cluded by the law. (rticle 330$ on the other hand$ allows the adoption of a natural child by the natural father or mother$ of other illegitimate children by their father or mother$ and of a step-child by the step-father or stepmother. !his last article is$ of course$ necessary to remove all doubts that adoption is not prohibited even in these cases where there already e&ist a relationship of parent and child between them by nature. !o say that adoption should not be allowed when the adopter and the adopted are related to each other$ e&cept in these cases enumerated in (rticle 330$ is to preclude adoption among relatives no matter how far removed or in whatever degree that relationship might be$ which in our opinion is not the policy of the law. !he interest and welfare of the child to be adopted should be of paramount consideration. Republic vs Court of Appeals %ames *ughes$ a natural born citi1en of the 2nited States of (merica$ married "enita )abunay$ a 3ilipino ,iti1en$ who herself was later naturali1ed as a citi1en of that country. !he spouses ointly filed a petition with the 4!, to adopt the minor niece and nephews of "enita$ who had been living with the couple even prior to the filing of the petition. !he minors$ as well as their parents$ gave consent to the adoption. !he 4!, rendered a decision granting the petition. Issue+ ,an the spouses adopt the minorsHeld+ 5hile %ames (nthony un6uestionably is not permitted to adopt under any of the e&ceptional cases enumerated in paragraph 738 of the afore6uoted article$ "enita$ however$ can 6ualify pursuant to paragraph 7387a8. "enita may not thus adopt alone since (rticle 90. re6uires a oint adoption by the husband and the wife$ a condition that must be read along together with (rticle 904. (rt 90. provides+ (rt. 90.. *usband and wife must ointly adopt$ e&cept in the following cases+ 798 5hen one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child: or 728 5hen one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other. (s amended by #&ecutive ;rder /9$ Presidential <ecree =o. >?3$ had thus made it mandatory for both the spouses to ointly adopt when one of them was an alien. !he law was silent when both spouses were of the same nationality.

!he 3amily ,ode has resolved any possible uncertainty. (rticle 90. thereof now e&presses the necessity for oint adoption by the spouses e&cept in only two instances+ 798 5hen one spouse seeks to adopt his own legitimate child: or 728 5hen one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other. It is in the foregoing cases when (rticle 90> of the ,ode$ on the sub ect of parental authority$ can aptly find governance. (rticle 90>. In case husband and wife ointly adopt or one spouse adopts the legitimate child of the other$ oint parental authority shall be e&ercised by the spouses in accordance with this ,ode. Republic vs Toledano Spouses (lvin (. ,louse and #velyn (. ,louse who are aliens filed a petition to adopt the minor$ Solomon %oseph (lcala. !hey are physically$ mentally$ morally$ and financially capable of adopting Solomon$ a twelve 7928 year old minor. Since 9/09 to 9/04$ then from =ovember 2$ 9/0/ up to the present$ Solomon %oseph (lcala was and has been under the care and custody of private respondents. Solomon gave his consent to the adoption. *is mother$ =ery (lcala$ a widow$ likewise consented to the adoption due to poverty and inability to support and educate her son. !he 4!, granted the petition. Issue: ,an the spouses adopt SolomonHeld: 2nder (rticles 904 and 90. of #&ecutive ;rder 7#.;.8 =o. 2?/$ otherwise known as @!he 3amily ,ode of the Philippines@$ private respondents spouses ,louse are clearly barred from adopting Solomon %oseph (lcala. (rticle 904$ paragraph 738 of #&ecutive ;rder =o. 2?/ e&pressly enumerates the persons who are not 6ualified to adopt$ viz.+ 738 (n alien$ e&cept+ 7a8 ( former 3ilipino citi1en who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity: 7b8 ;ne who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his or her 3ilipino spouse: or 7c8 ;ne who is married to a 3ilipino citi1en and seeks to adopt ointly with his or her spouse a relative by consanguinity of the latter. (liens not included in the foregoing e&ceptions may adopt 3ilipino children in accordance with the rules on inter-country adoption as may be provided by law. Private respondent #velyn (. ,louse$ on the other hand$ may appear to 6ualify pursuant to paragraph 37a8 of (rticle 904 of #.;. 2?/. She was a former 3ilipino citi1en. She sought to adopt her younger brother. 2nfortunately$ the petition for adoption cannot be granted in her favor alone without violating (rticle 90. which mandates a oint adoption by the husband and wife. It reads+ (rticle 90.. *usband and wife must ointly adopt$ e&cept in the following cases+ 798 5hen one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child: or 728 5hen one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other. (rticle 90. re6uires a oint adoption by the husband and wife$ a condition that must be read along together with (rticle 904. Cang vs Court of Appeals Petitioner *erbert ,ang and (nna )arie ,lavano who were married$ begot three children. <uring the early years of their marriage$ the ,ang coupleAs relationship was undisturbed. =ot long thereafter$ however$ (nna )arie learned of her husbandAs alleged e&tramarital affair. (nna )arie subse6uently filed a petition for legal separation which was granted. !hey had an agreement for support of the children and that (nna )arie can enter into agreements without the written consent of *erbert. Petitioner left for the 2S. )eanwhile$ the brother and sister-in-law of (nna )arie filed for the adoption of the 3 minor ,ang children. 2pon

learning of the adoption$ *erbert went back to the Philippines to contest it$ but the petition for adoption was granted by the court. Issue: ,an minor children be legally adopted without the written consent of a natural parent on the ground that the latter has abandoned themHeld: (rticle 2.> of the 3amily ,ode provides for its retroactivity @insofar as it does not pre udice or impair vested or ac6uired rights in accordance with the ,ivil ,ode or other laws.@ (s amended by the 3amily ,ode$ the statutory provision on consent for adoption now reads+ (rt. 900. !he written consent of the following to the adoption shall be necessary+ 728 the parents by nature of the child$ the legal guardian$ or the proper government instrumentality. 'ased on the foregoing$ it is thus evident that notwithstanding the amendments to the law$ the written consent of the natural parent to the adoption has remained a re6uisite for its validity. (s clearly inferred from the foregoing provisions of law$ the written consent of the natural parent is indispensable for the validity of the decree of adoption. =evertheless$ the re6uirement of written consent can be dispensed with if the parent has abandoned the child or that such parent is @insane or hopelessly intemperate.@ In the instant case$ records disclose that petitionerAs conduct did not manifest a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relin6uish all parental claims over his children as to$ constitute abandonment. Physical estrangement alone$ without financial and moral desertion$ is not tantamount to abandonment. 5hile admittedly$ petitioner was physically absent as he was then in the 2nited States$ he was not remiss in his natural and legal obligations of love$ care and support for his children. *e maintained regular communication with his wife and children through letters and telephone. *e used to send packages by mail and catered to their whims. Cervantes vs Fajardo !he minor was born to respondents ,onrado 3a ardo and Bina ,arreon$ who are common-law husband and wife. 4espondents offered the child for adoption to Bina ,arreonAs sister and brother-in-law$ the herein petitioners Cenaida ,arreon-,ervantes and =elson ,ervantes$ spouses$ who took care and custody of the child when she was barely two 728 weeks old. (n (ffidavit of ,onsent to the adoption of the child by herein petitioners$ was also e&ecuted by respondent Bina ,arreon. !he adoptive parents received a letter from the respondents demanding to be paid the amount of P9.?$???.??$ otherwise$ they would get back their child. Petitioners refused to accede to the demand. Subse6uently$ the respondents took the child. Issue+ ,an respondents take back their childHeld+ In all cases involving the custody$ care$ education and property of children$ the latterAs welfare is paramount. !he provision that no mother shall be separated from a child under five 7.8 years of age$ will not apply where the ,ourt finds compelling reasons to rule otherwise. In all controversies regarding the custody of minors$ the foremost consideration is the moral$ physical and social welfare of the child concerned$ taking into account the resources and moral as well as social standing of the contending parents. =ever has this ,ourt deviated from this criterion.

It is undisputed that respondent ,onrado 3a ardo is legally married to a woman other than respondent Bina ,arreon$ and his relationship with the latter is a common-law husband and wife relationship. *is open cohabitation with corespondent Bina ,arreon will not accord the minor that desirable atmosphere where she can grow and develop into an upright and moral-minded person. 'esides$ respondent Bina ,arreon had previously given birth to another child by another married man with whom she lived for almost three 738 years but who eventually left her and vanished. 2pon the other hand$ petitioners who are legally married appear to be morally$ physically$ financially$ and socially capable of supporting the minor and giving her a future better than what the natural mother$ whp is not only obless but also maintains an illicit relation with a married man$ can most likely give her. 'esides$ the minor has been legally adopted by petitioners with the full knowledge and consent of respondents. ( decree of adoption has the effect$ among others$ of dissolving the authority vested in natural parents over the adopted child$ e&cept where the adopting parent is the spouse of the natural parent of the adopted$ in which case$ parental authority over the adopted shall be e&ercised ointly by both spouses. !he adopting parents have the right to the care and custody of the adopted child and e&ercise parental authority and responsibility over him. Sayson vs Court of Appeals #leno and 4afaela Sayson begot five children$ namely$ )auricio$ 4osario$ 'asilisa$ 4emedios and !eodoro. #leno died on =ovember 9?$ 9/.2$ and 4afaela on )ay 9.$ 9/D>. !eodoro$ who had married Isabel 'autista$ died on )arch 23$ 9/D2. *is wife died nine years later. !heir properties were left in the possession of <elia$ #dmundo$ and <oribel$ all surnamed Sayson$ who claim to be their children. )auricio$ 4osario$ 'asilisa$ and 4emedios$ together with %uana ,. 'autista$ IsabelAs mother$ filed a complaint for partition and accounting of the intestate estate of !eodoro and Isabel Sayson. <elia$ #dmundo and <oribel filed their own complaint$ this time for the accounting and partition of the intestate estate of #leno and 4afaela Sayson$ against the coupleAs four surviving children. 'oth cases were decided in favor <elia$ et al on the basis of practically the same evidence. !he %udge declared in his decision that <elia and #dmundo were the legally adopted children of !eodoro and Isabel Sayson by virtue of the decree of adoption. <oribel was their legitimate daughter as evidenced by her birth certificate. ,onse6uently$ the three children were entitled to inherit from #leno and 4afaela by right of representation. Held: In conse6uence of the above observations$ we hold that <oribel$ as the legitimate daughter of !eodoro and Isabel Sayson$ and <elia and #dmundo$ as their adopted children$ are the e&clusive heirs to the intestate estate of the deceased couple$ conformably to the following (rticle /D/ of the ,ivil ,ode+ (rt. /D/. "egitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents and other ascendants$ without distinction as to se& or age$ and even if they should come from different marriages. (n adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting parents in the same manner as a legitimate child. !here is no 6uestion that as the legitimate daughter of !eodoro and thus the granddaughter of #leno and 4afaela$ <oribel has a right to represent her deceased father in the distribution of the intestate estate of her grandparents. 2nder (rticle /09$ 6uoted above$ she is entitled to the share her father would have directly inherited had he survived$ which shall be e6ual to the shares of her grandparentsA other children.

Teotico vs. Del Val 1 SCRA !"# Facts: 4ene !eotico$ married to the testatri&As niece named %osefina )ortera. !he testatri& %osefina )ortera as her sole and universal heir to all the remainder of her properties not otherwise disposed of in the will. Eicente !eotico filed a petition for the probate of the will before the ,I3 of )anila which was set for hearing after the re6uisite publication and service to all parties concerned. (na del Eal ,han$ claiming to be an adopted child of 3rancisca )ortera$ a deceased sister of the testatri&$ as well as an acknowledged natural child of %ose )ortera$ a deceased brother of the same testatri&$ filed an opposition to the probate of the will alleging the following grounds. Eicente '. !eotico$ filed a motion to dismiss the opposition alleging that the oppositor had no legal personality to intervene. !he probate court$ allowed the oppositor to intervene as an adopted child of 3rancisca )ortera$ and the oppositor amended her opposition by alleging the additional ground that the will is inoperative as to the share of <r. 4ene !eotico. (fter the parties had presented their evidence$ the probate court rendered its decision admitting the will to probate but declaring the disposition made in favor of <r. 4ene !eotico void with the statement that the portion to be vacated by the annulment should pass to the testatri&As heirs by way of intestate succession. $ssue: 5hether or not oppositor (na del Eal ,han has the right to intervene in this proceeding. Ruling: ;ppositor has no right to intervene because she has no interest in the estate either as heir$ e&ecutor$ or administrator$ nor does she have any claim to any property affected by the will$ because it nowhere appears therein any provision designating her as heir$ legatee or devisee of any portion of the estate. She has also no interest in the will either as administratri& or e&ecutri&. =either has she any claim against any portion of the estate because she is not a coowner thereof. !he oppositor cannot also derive comfort from the fact that she is an adopted child of 3rancisca )ortera because under our law the relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter and the adopted and does not e&tend to the relatives of the adopting parents or of the adopted child e&cept only as e&pressly provided for by law. *ence$ no relationship is created between the adopted and the collaterals of the adopting parents. (s a conse6uence$ the adopted is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of the adopter. C%ing &eng vs. 'alang( '.R. )o. &*11+ 1 If a 3ilipino adopts an alien$ the adopted alien does not ac6uire Philippine citi1enship because such ac6uisition of citi1enship ac6uires the character of naturali1ation which is regulated$ not by the ,ivil ,ode or the 3amily ,ode$ but by special law. &andingin vs. Republic( '.R. )o. 1#!+!, -(n alleged capability to support an adoptee through the help of other persons is not enough to support a petition for adoption. (ccording to S,$ adoption is personal between the adopter and the adoptee: the adopter should be in position to support the would-be adopted child in keeping with the means of the family.

-the written consent of the biological parents is indispensable for the validity of a decree of adoption. !he natural right of parent to child re6uires that consent be obtained before parental rights and duties may be terminated and reestablished in adoptive parents.

Tamargo vs CA FACTS:

GR No. 85044, June 3, 1992

In October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, minor, 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo ith an air rifle causing in!uries that resulted in her death" The #etitioners, natural #arents of Tamargo, filed a com#laint for damages against the natural #arents of Adelberto ith hom he as li$ing the time of the tragic incident" In %ecember 1981, the s#ouses &a#isura filed a #etition to ado#t Adelberto Bundoc" 'uch #etition as granted on (o$ember 1982 after the tragic incident" ISSUE: )hether #arental authority concerned may be gi$en retroacti$e effect so as to ma*e ado#ting #arents the indis#ensable #arties in a damage case filed against the ado#ted child here actual custody as lodged ith the biological #arents" HELD: '+ did not consider that retroacti$e effect may be gi$en to the decree of ado#tion so as to im#ose a liability u#on the ado#ting #arents accruing at the time hen they had no actual or #hysical custody o$er the ado#ted child" &etroacti$ity may be essential if it #ermits accrual of some benefit or ad$antage in fa$or of the ado#ted child" ,nder Article -. of the +hild and /outh )elfare +ode, #arental authority is #ro$isionally $ested in the ado#ting #arents during the #eriod of trial custody ho e$er in this case, trial custody #eriod either had not yet begin nor had been com#leted at the time of the shooting incident" 0ence, actual custody as then ith the natural #arents of Adelberto" Lahom Vs. Sibulo, G.R. No. 143 ! 1an ado#tee refused to use the surname of the ado#ter though already ado#ted" The ado#ter sought to rescind2re$o*e the %ecree of Ado#tion, but the %omestic Ado#tion Act hich remo$es the right of ado#ter to challenge the $alidity of the %OA became effecti$e" '+ held that the ado#ter may disinherit the ado#tee, and that the latter has the sole right to challenge the %OA"

IN THE "ATTER #F THE AD#$TI#N #F STE$HANIE NATH% AST#RGA GARCIA G.R. No. 14!311

1being a legitimate child by $irtue of ado#tion, it follo s that the child is entitled to all the rights #ro$ided by la to a legitimate child" The ado#ted child remains an intestate heir of his2her biological #arents" 0ence, she can ell assert her hereditary rights from her natural mother in the future"