You are on page 1of 6

BRIONES VS MIGUEL, 440 SCRA 455

FACTS: On March 5, 2002, petitioner Joey D. Briones filed a Petition for


Habeas Corpus against respondents Maricel Pineda Miguel and Francisca
Pineda Miguel, to obtain custody of his minor child Michael Kevin Pineda.
The petitioner alleges that the minor Michael Kevin Pineda is his illegitimate
son with respondent Loreta P. Miguel. The petitioner prays that the custody
of his son Michael Kevin Pineda be given to him as his biological father and
[as] he has demonstrated his capability to support and educate him.

ISSUE:
Whether or not as the natural father, may be denied the custody and
parental care of his own child in the absence of the mother who is
away.

HELD:
There is thus no question that Respondent Loreta, being the mother
of and having sole parental authority over the minor, is entitled to
have custody of him. She has the right to keep him in her company.
She cannot be deprived of that right, and she may not even renounce
or transfer it "except in the cases authorized by law. Not to be
ignored in Article 213 of the Family Code is the caveat that, generally,
no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the
mother, except when the court finds cause to order otherwise.

REYNALDO ESPIRITU VS CA AND TERESITA MASAUDING


GR-115640 March 15, 1995
On June 30, 1993, the trial court dismissed the petition for habeas
corpus. It suspended Teresita's parental authority over Rosalind and
Reginald and declared Reynaldo to have sole parental authority over
them but with rights of visitation to be agreed upon by the parties and
to be approved by the Court. On February 16, 1994, the Court of
Appeals per Justice Isnani, with Justices de Pano and Ibay-Somera
concurring, reversed the trial court's decision. It gave custody to
Teresita and visitation rights on weekends to Reynaldo.

ISSUE: Whether or not a father of a seven year old child can be of custody
instead of a mother.

HELD:
The law is more than satisfied by the judgment of the trial court. The
children are now both over seven years old. Their choice of the
parent with whom they prefer to stay is clear from the record. From all
indications, Reynaldo is a fit person, thus meeting the two
requirements found in the first paragraph of Article 213 of the Family
Code. The children understand the unfortunate shortcomings of their
mother and have been affected in their emotional growth by her
behavior.

IN RE: STEPHANIE ASTORGA GARCIA


GR-148311, March 31, 2005

FACTS: On August 31, 2000, Honorato B. Catindig, herein petitioner,


filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child Stephanie Nathy
Astorga Garcia. He alleged therein, among others, that Stephanie was
born on June 26, 1994; that her mother is Gemma Astorga Garcia; that
Stephanie has been using her mothers middle name and surname; and
that he is now a widower and qualified to be her adopting parent. He
prayed that Stephanies middle name Astorga be changed to Garcia, her
mothers surname, and that her surname Garcia be changed to
Catindig, his surname.

ISSUE: Whether or not an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural


father, use the surname of her natural mother as her middle
name.

HELD: The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General


(OSG), agrees with petitioner that Stephanie should be permitted to
use, as her middle name, the surname of her natural mother for the
following reasons: First, it is necessary to preserve and maintain
Stephanies filiation with her natural mother because under Article 189
of the Family Code, she remains to be an intestate heir of the
latter. Thus, to prevent any confusion and needless hardship in the
future, her relationship or proof of that relationship with her natural
mother should be maintained. Second, there is no law expressly
prohibiting Stephanie to use the surname of her natural mother as her
middle name. What the law does not prohibit, it allows. Last, it is
customary for every Filipino to have a middle name, which is ordinarily
the surname of the mother. Stephanie should be allowed to use her
mothers surname GARCIA as her middle name.

LAHOM VS SIBULO, 406 SCRA 135


FACTS:
At the tender age of two, Jose Melvin enjoyed the warmth, love and
support of the couple who treated the child like their own. Indeed, for
years, Dr. and Mrs. Lahom fancied on legally adopting Jose Melvin.
Finally, in 1971 in keeping with the court order, the Civil Registrar of
Naga City changed the name Jose Melvin Sibulo to Jose Melvin
Lahom. A sad turn of events came many years later. In December of
1999, Mrs. Lahom commenced a petition to rescind the decree of
adoption before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, of Naga
City. In her petition, she averred - respondent refused to change his
surname from Sibulo to Lahom; respondent continued using his
surname Sibulo and his records with the Professional Regulation
Commission showed his name as Jose Melvin M. Sibulo.

ISSUE: Whether or not the adoption can be revoked or rescinded by an


adopter.

HELD: R.A. No. 8552 has unqualifiedly withdrawn from an adopter a


consequential right to rescind the adoption decree even in cases
where the adoption might clearly turn out to be undesirable, it
remains, nevertheless, the bounden duty of the Court to apply the
law. Dura lex sed lex would be the hackneyed truism that those
caught in the law have to live with. It is still noteworthy, however, that
an adopter, while barred from severing the legal ties of adoption, can
always for valid reasons cause the forfeiture of certain benefits
otherwise accruing to an undeserving child. For instance, upon the
grounds recognized by law, an adopter may deny to an adopted child
his legitime and, by a will and testament, may freely exclude him from
having a share in the disposable portion of his estate.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS CA, 205 SCRA 356


FACTS: On February 2, 1988, Zenaida Corteza Bobiles filed a petition to
adopt Jason Condat, then six (6) years old and who had been living with
her family since he was four (4) months old, before the Regional Trial Court
of Legaspi City, docketed therein as Special Proceeding No. 1386.
The petitioner contends that the petition for adoption should be dismissed
outright for it was filed solely by private respondent without joining her
husband, in violation of Article 185 of the Family Code which requires joint
adoption by the spouses.

ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi
City for granting the private respondent in adopting Jason Condat be
reversed.

HELD:
The trial court and respondent court acted correctly in granting the
petition for adoption and we find no reason to disturb the same.
Adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the interests and
welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration. They are
designed to provide homes, parental care and education for
unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give them the protection of
society and family in the person of the adopted, as well as to allow
childless couples or persons to experience the joys of parenthood and
give them legally a child in the person of the adopted for the
manifestation of their natural parental instincts. Every reasonable
intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and
compassionate objectives of the law.

BOBANOVIC, et al, VS MONTES, etc., et al, 142 SCRA 485


FACTS: On Nov. 28, 1984, a petition to adopt the minor Adam Christopher
Sales was filed by spouses Slobodan Bobanovic and Dianne Elizabeth
Cunningham Bobanovic, both Australian citizens with established
residence at 3 Rethel Close Keilor Downs, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
but who then were temporarily residing at No. 08 Aries, Bel-Air, Makati,
Metro Manila. They are childless since their marriage on Nov. 16, 1979 due
to primary infertility on the part of the wife. Adam Christopher Sales also
known as Adam Christopher Bobanovic was born on Apr. 5, 1984 to Lulu
Sales as shown in his birth certificate. He was given to care and custody of
the petitioners by his natural mother on Nov. 19, 1984, as shown by the
Deed of Surrender and Waiver and gave her written consent to this
adoption.

ISSUE: Whether or not MSSD (Minister of Social Services and


Development) will grant and issue travel clearance to petitioners adopted
child.

HELD: Aliens who are either non-resident or residents but whose


government the Republic of the Philippines has broken diplomatic relations
which are the only ones disqualified to adopt under Article 335 of the Civil
Code.
It is logical effect of the decree of adoption that the adopted minor should
be allowed to travel to Australia to join his adoptive parents.
Adoptions statues, being humane, and salutary, hold the interest and
welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration and are designed to
provide homes, parental care and education for unfortunate, need or
orphaned children and give them protection of society and family in the
person of the adopter as well as to allow childless couples or persons to
experience the joys of parenthood and give them legally a child in the
person of adopted for the manifestation of their natural parental instincts.