You are on page 1of 7

In re: Adoption of Edwin Villa insistence of rigid adherence to procedural form of pleadings.

The tendency of
modern courts is to hold that there need not be more than a substantial
Republic vs. CA Bobiles compliance with statutory requirements to sustain the validity of such
Petition for review on certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals proceedings.

Facts: Republic of the Philippines, petitioner

 February 2, 1988 – Zenaida Corteza Bobiles filed a petition to adopt Jason
Honorable Rodolfo Toledano (as RTC Judge) and Sps Clouse, respondents
Condat (6 years old) who had been living with them since he was 4 months old.
June 8, 1994
 Nobody appeared to oppose the petition so on March 20, 1998 the court held
the trial and rendered its decision to allow Bobiles to adopt the child. Evelyn married natural born citizen of the US Alvin clouse in June 4, 1981. She
herself became a naturalized citizen in August 19, 1988. Her 12-year old younger
 The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals stating that the RTC erred in
brother, Solomon Alcala, has been under their care and custody since she got
ruling that the FC could not be retroactively applied to the adoption. The Court
married (1981-1984, 1989-time of decision). The spouses are now attempting to
of Appeals rule in favour of Zenaida Bobiles.
adopt Solomon. The mother of Evelyn and Solomon, Nery Alcala has given her
 Petition for adoption was filed of February 2, 1988 when the applicable law was consent to such adoption since she cannot support and educate her son due to
still PD No. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code. The Code only required poverty. Nila Corazon (the social worker assigned to conduct the Home and Child
that the petition for adoption be filed by either spouse. After the trial court Study) also recommended the granting of the petition for the adoption.
decided on the petition and while it was still on appeal in the Court of Appeals,
the FC took effect on August 3, 1988. Under the FC, joint adoption by the RTC granted the petition and has published such order in a newspaper of general
husband and wife is required. circulation for 3 consecutive weeks when through the OSG, the petitioner, contends
that the couple isn’t qualified to adopt under the Philippine law.
 Petitioner contends that the court should retroactively apply the FC because
Mrs. Bobiles did not acquire vested rights to adopt Jason Condat by mere filing
WON They are qualified to adopt under the Philippine law
of her petition. The court, in applying the FC retroactively should have
dismissed the petition because it was only filed by Mrs. Bobiles.
No. Art184 of the FC states that the H is not qualified to adopt Solomon since he
is a natural born citizen of the US who is trying to adopt a person neither his
relative nor a legitimate child of his sps. See A184.
1. WON the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the FC could be applied
retroactively to the petition for adoption – NO Even W is no longer a Filipino citizen when she tried to adopt her brother in 1990.
She may appear to be qualified to adopt him under par3(A) of A184 but the
 Article 246 of the FC states that the provision of the code will only retroact so
petition cannot be granted in her favor without violating A185 which reads that the
long as its application will not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights.
husband and wife must jointly adopt except in cases wherein the adoption
 Zenaida filed the petition for adoption under the Child and Youth Welfare Code. contemplated is that of illegitimate children or legitimate children of one sps.
This code allowed her the right to file the petition alone. Upon filing, her right
to file and to receive a decision in accordance with the law at the time was Court further said that this is clear from the historical evolution of PD 603 (uses “H
already vested. and W may adopt) to EO 91 (uses shall) and the FC. This is to protect the Filipino
children who are put up for adoption since the concept of joint parental authority is
 The right cannot be prejudiced by the enactment of a new law.
the ideal situation. Also, since the child will be elevated to the level of a legitimate
 A petition cannot be dismissed for failing to comply with a law that was not yet child, it is only necessary to require joint adoption where harmony between the sps
in force at the time it was filed. can be insured. As such, the Court must uphold the interest and welfare of the child
to be adopted as such are upheld by the FC.
2. WON the Court of Appeals should have modified the trial court’s decision by
See 186 FC as well, it was cited lang to show that joint parental authority will be
granting the adoption in favour of Zenaida alone and not both Zenaida and
recognized in cases of adoption under A185.
Discoro, since he was not a petitioner. – NO
 Discoro was not a petitioner but he submitted an affidavit of consent which was
attached to the petition and his testimony in open court shows that he himself Republic v. Miller
actually joined his wife in adopting the child. Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of CA. 1999
 Adoption statutes as well as matters of procedure leading up to the adoption
FACTS: Claude Miller, formerly a member of the US Air Force assigned at Clark Air
should be liberally construed to carry out the beneficent purposes of the
Base, and his wife, Jumrus Miller, both US citizens but residing in Angeles City, filed
adoption institution. Future of a child should not be compromised by arbitrary
w/ RTC a verified petition to adopt minor Michael Magno Madayag. Poverty and
deep concern for his future prompted Michael’s natural parents to give their department uncovered what it considered as an anomalous adoption decree
irrevocable consent to the adoption. RTC granted petition for adoption finding regarding said minor. It turned out that the DSWD did not have any record in
petitioners to possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for its files regarding the adoption and that there was never any order from
adoption. Michael was freed from all obligation of obedience and support w/ respect respondent judge for the DSWD to conduct a "Home and Child Study Report" in
to natural parents. He was then declared child of the Millers by adoption. His the case. Furthermore, there was no directive from respondent judge for the
surname was to be changed from “Madayag” to “Miller”. social welfare officer of the lower court to coordinate with the DSWD on the
matter of the required reports for said minor's adoption
ISSUE: WON the Court may allow aliens to adopt a Filipino child despite the ♦ The adoption never passed through the DSWD and as such the administrative
prohibition under FC, effective on Aug 3, 1988, when the petition for adoption was complaint was filed against Judge Belen.
filed before FC, on July 29, 1988, under the provision of the Child and Youth Welfare ♦ Judge Belen explained that he Vedaña to conduct the home and case study, and
Code, w/c allowed aliens to adopt. thereafter submit the required reports thereon, precisely because the same are
among her duties under the Manual for Clerks of Court. Since these functions
HELD: Yes. The enactment of FC will not impair the right of alien respondents to were so provided to be performed by her, there was no need for him to order
adopt a Fil child because the rt has become vested at the time of filing of the said respondent social welfare officer to coordinate with the DSWD as he
petition for adoption and shall be governed by the law then in force. A vested rt is assumed that it was routine procedure for her to do so.
one whose existence, effectivity and extent does not depend upon events foreign to ♦ Vendana on her part said that there never was any directive from Judge Belen
the will of the holder. to coordinate with DSWD concerning the adoption. She also denied asking for
money from the adoptive parents.
The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action. Adoption statues, being humane and salutary, hold Issues:
the interests and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration. Every 1. WON Judge Belen rendered the adoption decree in derogation of the provisions
reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill the noble and of Article 33 of PD 603 and of Circcular no. 12. YES STERN WARNING
compassionate objectives of the law. 2. WON Vedaña, failed to comply with the requirement in Circular No. 12 that she
should have coordinated with the DSWD in connection with the preparation of
Lazatin vs. Campos the home and case study reports. YES REPRIMANDED

Santos vs. Aranzanso Ratio:

♦ Article 33 provides: No petition for adoption shall be granted unless the
Department of Social Welfare and Development vs. Belen [July 18, 1997] Department of Social Welfare, or the Social Work and Counselling Division, in
Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court case of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, has made a case study of the
child to be adopted, his natural parents as well as the prospective adopting
Facts: parents, and has submitted its report and recommendations on the matter to
♦ The administrative complaint was initiated by Corazon M. Layug, Social Welfare the court hearing such petition. The Department of Social Welfare shall
Officer IV of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Field intervene on behalf of the child if it finds, after such case study, that the
Office No. 1 stationed in San Fernando, La Union, respondent Judge Antonio M. petition should be denied
Belen of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, of Lingayen, Pangasinan, is ♦ Circular No. 12 was issued by the Supreme Court to obviate the mishandling of
charged with rendering an erroneous decree of adoption in violation of Article adoption cases by the judges. The circular provides:
33 of Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as "The Child and Youth
Welfare Code," and the corresponding Supreme Court circular thereon, namely,
Circular No. 12 dated October 2, 1986. (1) to NOTIFY the Ministry of Social Services and Development, thru its local
♦ Desiderio Soriano and Aurora Bernardo-Soriano, both of whom are naturalized agency, of the filing of adoption cases or the pendency thereof with respect to
American citizens, filed a verified petition for adoption of their niece, the minor those cases already filed;
Zhedell Bernardo Ibea.
♦ Judge based his decree primarily on the "findings and recommendation of the (2) to strictly COMPLY with the requirement in Article 33 of the aforesaid decree
DSWD that the adopting parents on the one hand and the adoptee on the other .
hand have already developed love and emotional attachment and parenting
rules have been demonstrated to the minor."
The Staff Assistant V. (Social Worker) of the Regional Trial Courts, if any, shall
♦ findings and recommendations, as respondent judge asserted in his judgment,
coordinate with the Ministry of Social Services and Development
are contained in the "Adoptive Home Study Report" and "Child Study Report" representatives in the preparation and submittal of such case study. . . .
prepared by the local office of the DSWD through respondent Elma P. Vedañ
♦ When Zhedell Bernardo Ibea sought to obtain the requisite travel clearance
from the DSWD in order to join her adoptive parents in the United States, the
♦ The judge should have notified the DSWD at the outset of the case so that the Upon learning of the petition, petitioner H immediately returned to the Phils and
corresponding case study could have been accordingly conducted. The DSWD filed an opposition thereto alleging that though the resp-sps were more financially
is undoubtedly has the necessary competence, more than that possessed by capable than him, his “meager” finances should not strip him of his parental
the court social welfare officer, to make the proper recommendation authority over his children.
♦ Judge Belen should never have merely presumed that it was routinary for the
social welfare officer to coordinate with the DSWD regarding adoption RTC ruled that Anna Marie had in effect relinquished custody over the children and
proceedings. therefore, such custody should be transferred to the father. In 1990, however, RTC
♦ Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a magistrate should be the embodiment issued the petition for adoption to the Clavanos. Its reasons were the kids’ close
of, among other desirable characteristics, judicial competence. Among the filial ties w/ the Clavano family, that the latter were a childless couple and the
prime duties to which a judge of the law must ever be faithful is that of being children’s own manifestation to be w/ them as manifested in kids’ snuggling close to
abreast with the law and jurisprudence, since, as has so often been advanced, their uncle even though their natural mother was around.
the administration of justice requires the continuous study of law and
jurisprudence ISSUES & RATIO:
♦ Vendana should have been aware not only of the scope of her duties and 1. WON minor children be legally adopted w/o the written consent of a natural
responsibilities but that she should have likewise been familiar with current parent on the ground that the latter has abandoned them
laws, rules and regulations pertinent to her position as such social welfare  NO, notwithstanding the amendments to the law, the written consent of the
officer. natural parent to the adoption is indispensable and has remained a requisite for
♦ Judge Belen acted in good faith when he stated in his decision that the DSWD its validity. Nevertheless, the requirement of a written consent can be
submitted the required reports to his court through respondent Vedaña, dispensed w/ IF the parent has abandoned the child or that such parent is
presumably in the belief that it was standard procedure for the Social Welfare insane or hopelessly intemperate. The Court may acquire jurisdiction over the
Officer II of a Regional Trial Court to do so in coordination with the DSWD. case even w/o the written consent of the parents or one of the parents
provided that the petition for adoption alleges facts sufficient to warrant
Duncan vs. CFI exemption from compliance therewith.

Cang v. CA and Clavano 2. What is abandonment in adoption cases and did H Cang abandon his children?
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of CA. 1998  Abandonment means neglect or refusal to perform the natural and legal
obligations of care and support w/c parents owe their children. Physical
FACTS: Petitioner Herbert Cang and Anna Marie Clavano were married in 1973. estrangement alone w/o financial and moral desertion is not tantamount to
They begot three children namely: Keith, Charmaine and Joseph Anthony. Anna abandonment.
Marie learned of H’s alleged extramarital affair w/ family friend Wilma Soco and filed  NO. In the case, although petitioner was physically absent as he was then in
a petition for legal separation w/ alimony soon after. the US, he was not remiss in his natural and legal obligs of love, care and
support for his children. He maintained regular communication w/ his W and
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court approved manifestation of the Cang sps children by way of letters and telephone. He used to send packages by mails
providing that they agreed to live separately and that H Cang provide the children and catered to their whims. Although there was some irregularity as regards
monthly support of PhP1K. the bank account he opened for his children, he did previously intend and gave
support to them. It was only difficult for him to do so because of his previous
He left for the US, sought divorce from a Nevada Court and was issued a divorce status of illegal alien in the US.
decree w/c ordered him to provide another USD50/mo as support for his kids and  It was actually Anna Marie who left her children to the care of her relatives to
that also granted sole custody of the 3 minor kids to Anna Marie. Thereafter, he pursue her business abroad. The adoption appears to be a matter of
took an American wife and thus became a naturalized US citizen. In 1986, he convenience for her because she herself was capable of supporting her own
divorced (again) and never remarried. kids. It was bad enough that their father left the children when he went
abroad, but when the mother followed suit for her own reasons, the situation
In 1987, resp-sps Ronald Clavano, a businessman who travels a lot, and Maria Clara worsened.
Clavano,an intl flight stewardess, bro & sis –in-law of Anna Marie, filed petition for  And even though the children are now all grown up: 2 of legal age and one
adoption of the 3 minor Cang kids w/ the signature of then 14-yr old Keith signifying approaching 18, the case must be determined as of the time the petition for
consent to his adoption. Mom Anna Marie likewise filed an affidavit of consent adoption was filed and as it was filed w/o the required consent of their father
alleging that H had evaded to support the children. In light of her need to go to the who by law and under the given facts has not abandoned them.
US to attend to a family business, leaving the children to the respondents were
much better in the interest of the children esp since they were financially capable of HELD: Petition for review on certiorari granted. Judgment and resolution set aside.
supporting the children. Moreover, her children were already attuned or close to the
Macario, Celso & Aurelia all surnamed TAMARGO, petitioners vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, Hon. Ariston Rubio, RTC, Victor & Clara Bundoc, respondents
Petition for review of CA decision Civil liability is based on parental authority vested by CC upon parents. It
assumes that parents were negligent in the performance of their legal & natural
Facts: duty to supervise the child who’s in their custody & control. Presumption may
Oct. 20, 1982: 10 yr old Adelberto Bundoc shot Jennifer Tamargo w/an air rifle be overturned by proof that they exercised all diligence to prevent damage.
w/c resulted in her death. Bundoc sps had parental authority over Adelberto when incident occurred. It’s
Macario Tamargo, Jennifer’s adopting parent & sps Celso & Aurelia Tamargo, logical that the natural parents who had actual custody of the minor are the
Jennifer’s natural parents, filed a civil complaint for damages against sps Victor proper parties to the suit for damages. But they rely on Child & Youth Welfare
& Clara Bundoc, Adelberto’s natural parents w/whom he was living at the time Code, Art. 36 w/c provides that a decree of adoption shall be effective as of the
of the incident. date the original petition was filed. Further, they rely on Art. 39 of the same
Criminal case: Adelberto acquitted for acting w/o discernment. code w/c provides that adoption shall dissolve the authority vested in the
Prior to the incident or on Dec. 10, 1981, sps Sabas & Felisa Rapisura filed a natural parents except where adopter is sp of the surviving natural parent.
petition to adopt Adelberto such was granted on Nov. 18, 1982. But CC provides that the basis of parental liability for torts of a minor child is
Bundoc sps claim that the Rapisura sps should be the proper parties in this suit the relationship existing bet parents & minor child LIVING with them & over
since parental authority shifted to the adopting parent from the moment the whom law presumes the parents exercise supervision & control. Art. 58 of the
petition for adoption was filed. Child & Youth Welfare Code provides that parents & guardian responsible for
Tamargos claim that since Adelberto was staying w/the Bundocs at the time of damages caused by child under their parental authority in accordance with the
the incident, their parental authority over the child had not ceased. CC. FC Art. 221 likewise provides that parents are responsible for damages &
Trial court: dismissed petition claiming Bundocs were not proper parties. injuries caused by minors living in their company & under their parental
Tamargos filed MFR but denied for failure to give notice to all parties 3 days authority.
before the hearing. Appeal was likewise dismissed for being filed out of time. Retroactivity may be allowed if it will permit the accrual of benefits/advantages
CA: dismissed. Petitioners lost their rt to appeal. in favor of the adopted child. But it won’t be proper to retroactively apply a
liability incurred when adopting parents had no actual or physical custody over
Issues & Ratio: the child. Unfair to burden them w/liability they could not have foreseen or
1. WON petitioners despite losing their rt to appeal may still file this prevented esp in this case where they were in the US at the time of the
petition. - YES incident. Holding them liable would be inconsistent w/the philosophy & policy
Since MFR did not comply w/notice requirement, it’s only considered pro forma underlying the doctrine of vicarious liability.
& it did not interrupt/suspend reglementary period to appeal. Art. 35 of the Child & Youth Welfare Code provides that no petition for adoption
What’s mandatory is the service of motion on the opposing counsel indicating shall be finally granted unless adopting parents are given a supervised trial
time & place of hearing. custody period of at least 6 mos to assess their readiness. During the period of
Technical rules suspended in order that substantial justice may be served. Rules trial custody, parental authority shall be vested in adopting parents. In this
of procedure ought not to be applied in a rigid technical sense. They’re only case, trial custody period had not yet begun or had already been completed at
used to help secure not override substantial justice. Rigid enforcement would the time the incident took place. Besides, actual custody was then w/his natural
defeat the aim. parents.
Held: Petition granted. CA reversed & set aside. Complaint reinstated & remanded
2. WON effects of adoption in so far as parental authority is concerned may to the lower court for further proceedings.
be given retroactive effect so as to make the adopting parents the
proper party in a damage suit filed against their adopted child. - NO Sayson vs. CA
Not disputed that Adelberto’s act gave rise to a cause of action on quasi-delict
against him. CC Art. 2176: Whoever by act/omission causes damage to Johnston vs. Republic [April 30, 1963]
another, there being fault/negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Appeal from a decision and order of the COFI Rizal
Such fault/negligence if there’s no pre-existing contractual relation bet parties
is called a quasi-delict. Facts:
CC ART. 2180: Obligations under Art. 2176 are demandable not only from one’s ♦ June 24, 1960 - Isabel Valdes Johnston (48 years old and married to Raymond
own acts/omissions but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Arthur Johnston), filed a petition for the adoption of one Ana Isabel Henriette
The father, & in case of his death/incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the Antonio Concepcion Georgiana, 2 years and 10 months old.
damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. Responsibility ♦ The dispositive portion of the decision provided that the surname that should be
will cease if they prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a given to the adopted child be Valdes and not Johnston.
family to prevent damage. ♦ October 24, 1960 - Isabel Valdes Johnston that the surname of the minor be
CC Art. 2180 is frequently called as vicarious liability or the doctrine of imputed Valdes Johnston instead of Valdes but her motion was denied.
negligence. Parental liability is a natural/logical consequence of the parents’
duties & responsibilities (includes instructing, controlling & disciplining of child). Issue: WON the surname of Valdes Johnston should be given to the adopted child.
 The error, though concerning only a clerical and innocuous error, could be
Ratio: corrected under Rule 108 in the same proceeding for adoption to prevent
♦ Isabel argues that since she is now using the surname of her husband by multiplicity of actions and inconvenience to the petitioners.
virtue of Article 370, par. 1 of the new Civil Code, and because that is the
surname (Valdes Johnston) she used in filing the petition in the present case, 2. Another contention is that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the private
under which she testified at the time of the trial, and under which she is now resps’ petition for adoption insofar as notice by publication did not state the
known to all her relatives, friends and acquaintances, she had to be known by true name of the minor child.
her maiden surname, and the lower court should have decreed that the minor  The correction involves merely the substitution of the letters “ch” for the “d”, so
whom she adopted should be allowed to bear the surname she is now using. that what appears as “Midael” as given name would read as “Michael.” Hence
She also argues that the use of the surname "Valdes" by the adopted child, as the change cannot possibly cause any confusion because both names can be
prescribed by the lower court, will create the impression that she is the read and pronounced w/ the same rhyme (tugma) and tone (tono,tunog). The
illegitimate child of petitioner-appellant begotten before her marriage, a purpose of the publication requirement, w/c is to give notice to those who have
situation which is humiliating to both adopter and adopted. any objections to the adoption should make it known, has been served by
♦ The SG argues that Isabel’s surname is Valdes and not Johnston; that a married publication of notice in the case. Hence, RTC correctly granted petition for
woman has a surname of her own to which may be added her husband's adoption.
surname if she so chooses; that if the minor be permitted to use the surname  However, pursuant to Rule 108 Sec 4, the notice for correction of entry must
Valdes Johnston, much confusion would result because the public would be also be published (for 3 consec wks in newspaper of gen circulation). While
misled into believing that she was adopted by appellant's husband also, which there was notice given by publication, it was only a notice for adoption.
is not true in this case. Nothing was mentioned that in addition, the correction of his name in the civil
♦ The court ruled that the provision of law (Art. 341, par. 4, Civil Code) which registry was also being sought. The local civil registrar, who was not given
entitles the adopted minor to the use of the adopter's surname, refers to the notice of the proceeding, was thus deprived of notice, and of the opportunity to
adopter's own surname and not to her surname acquired by virtue of marriage. be heard being an indispensable party w/o whom no final determination of the
Isabel's real surname is Valdes and not Johnston, and as she made the case can be had.
adoption singly without the concurrence of her husband, and not as a married
woman, her name as adopter was her maiden name. The adoption created a HELD: Judgment affirmed w/ modification: by deleting the decision of RTC ordering
personal relationship between the adopter and the adopted, and the consent of local civil registrar to change the name “Midael” to “Michael” in the birth cert of the
Raymond Johnston, Isabel Valdes' husband, to the adoption by her individually, child. Hence, adoption of Midael C Mazon affirmed.
did not have the effect of making him an adopting father, so as to entitle the
child to the use of Johnston's own surname. Republic vs. Hernandez [February 9, 1996]
♦ To allow the minor to adopt the surname of the husband of the adopter, would Petition for Certiorari to review a decision of RTC Pasig
mislead the public into believing that he had also been adopted by the husband,
which is not the case. And when later, questions of successional rights arise, the Facts:
husband's consent to the adoption might be presented to prove that he had  March 10, 1994: Van & Regina Munson (respondents) filed a petition to adopt
actually joined in the adoption. Kevin Earl Bartolome Moran alleging that they were qualified & fit to be
adoptive parents. They likewise filed a petition to change child’s 1st name to
Republic vs. Wong Aaron Joseph Andrade-Munson as this was his baptismal name & he’s been
called as such by his adoptive family ever since he arrived at their residence.
Republic v. CA and Caranto  Republic of the Philippines: opposed claiming that petitions for adoption &
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of CA. 1996 petitions for change of name should be done in 2 separate proceedings.
 RTC: approved petition for adoption & granted change of 1st name claiming that
FACTS: RTC Cavite granted resps Caranto sps’ petition for adoption of Midael C no rts have been prejudiced & since child’s barely over 1 yr old, there can be no
Mazon along w/ prayer for the correction of the minor’s first name “Midael” which immoral, criminal/illicit purpose for seeking change of name. RTC likewise
was mistakenly registered and recorded in his cert of birth as “Michael.” claims that it’s the right of the adoptive parents to freely select their adopted
child’s first name.
In the notice published in the newspaper, the notice stated the adoption of one  Republic appealed but it didn’t assail the fitness of the Munson sps to be
“Michael C. Mazon.” He has been staying w/ the sps since he was 7 yrs old. adoptive parents and the validity of the adoption. Sufficient proof that they are
qualified & that the complied w/the requirements.
ISSUES & RATIO: 1. petition for hearing was published 3x in a newspaper of gen. circulation
1. SolGen opposed the petition insofar as it sought the correction of the name of 2. they’re financially able.
the child from “Midael” to “Michael” w/c should not be granted because the 3. they don’t have criminal/derogatory record
petition was basically for adoption; that the correction of names cannot be 4. DSWD recommended legal adoption finding that the Munsons are religious,
effected in the same proceeding for adoption. responsible, mature, & friendly. They’re physically healthy, mentally fit,
spiritually & financially capable. They provided child w/his needs, shared
their time, love & attention to him & they’re ready & willing to continue assesses adopter’s fitness & qualifications while in a change of name, propriety
providing him a happy & secure home life. Child is growing normally & had & reasonableness of grounds supporting proposed change of name is
comfortably settled in his new home. 6 mos trial period created close bond ascertained w/o creating/affecting family relations. So WRT petition for change
bet the parties. of name, the action instituted was grossly insufficient in form & substance.
 However, petitioner still insists that change of name should not be granted since Suits/actions whose subj matters/corresponding reliefs are unrelated/diverse
adoption & change of name are not related to each other considering that are best taken up individually.
they’re governed by different sets of law & rules. Adoption governed by FC 183-  Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be
193 & Rules of Court (ROC) Rule 99 while change of name is governed by CC ignored at will to suit party’s convenience. They’re impt in ensuring effective
364-380 & ROC Rule 103. And in this case, only the adoption requirements enforcement of substantive rts thru orderly & speedy administration of justice.
have been complied with. Adoption only allows change of surname. Rule should They should only be relaxed in very extreme circumstances when rigid
be adhered to strictly by virtue of State’s natural interest in maintaining as application would frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. In this case,
system of identification of its citizens & for the orderly administration of justice. no injustice will be done by following the reglementary procedure set out for
 Respondents on the other hand claim that ROC Rule 2, Sec. 5 allows permissive change in proper/given name. The State stands to be prejudiced by
joinder of causes of action to avoid multiplicity of suits in order to discourage disregarding Rule 103.
prolonged & vexatious litigations and that they have complied w/the  Respondent judge exceeded his prerogatives by rendering assailed decision w/c
requirements of this rule (jurisdiction of court, proper venue & joinder of is unsupported by both statutory & case law.
parties). They claim that rules don’t prohibit joinder of adoption & change of 2. WON there was a lawful ground for the change of name - NO
name. Their only reason for change of name: upon grant of adoption, adoptee  No legal/jurisprudential basis for RTC’s ruling.
assumed ipso facto a new identification & designation & Aaron Joseph was  Name: combination of words by w/c a person’s known & identified &
name given during baptism. They claim that change merely confirms distinguished fr others for world’s convenience in addressing/dealing w/him.
designation by w/c he’s known & called in community in w/c he lives. Two parts: given/proper name + surname/family name. Former is chosen by
parents, latter fixed by law.
Issues & Ratio:  CC 408: person’s birth must be entered in civil register. Official name & name in
1. WON RTC erred in granting change of registered proper/given name of the eyes of law is the one given in the civil register.
child-YES  CC 376: No person can change his name/surname w/o judicial authority
 FC 189 allows as matter of rt & obligation and as natural & necessary premised on the interest of State for purposes of identification.
consequence of adoption the adoptee to bear adopter’s surname even if latter  Change of name can only be done under Rule 103 of ROC implementing CC
does not pray for it. However, it does not confer upon the adopter a license to 376. It’s a privilege & not a rt w/c is based on the court’s discretion. Proper &
change adoptee’s registered first name. It must remain as it was originally reasonable cause should be given to justify change. Some proper reasons
registered in the civil register. It’s not a mre incident/adjunct of an adoption recognized by jurisprudence:
proceeding. Inserting such prayer in a petition for adoption cannot be granted. 1. name’s ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write/pronounce
Registered name remains until court orders otherwise, it should come w/a 2. change results as legal consequence of legitimation/adoption
judicial order. 3. change will avoid confusion
 Change of name is governed by ROC Rule 103 wherein sufficiency of 4. continuous use & has been known since childhood by a Filipino name &
reasons/grounds is determined. Petition should be filed w/RTC where person unaware of alien parentage
desiring to change name resides. He should be a resident of that province for at 5. change is based on sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of
lest 3 yrs. Date & place of hearing should be published. Only granted if former alienage in good faith & w/o prejudice to anyone
allegations are proven true & causes are reasonable. Grant should be recorded 6. surname causes embarrassment & not for fraudulent purpose & w/o
w/proper civil register. This is an independent & separate special proceeding prejudice to public interest
governed by its own set of rules. It can’t be granted by means of any other  Baptism & fact that one has been using a different name & has been known by
proceeding. it are not proper & reasonable causes to legally authorize to change name.
 Joinder of causes of action means uniting 2 or more demand or rts of action in Other names not entered with the civil register are unofficial & can’t be
one action. It’s the union of 2 or more civil causes. It’s permissive & not recognized as person’s real name.
mandatory. It aims to avoid multiplicity of suits & to promote efficient  Thus, grounds raised by respondents are not proper. The Court is concerned
administration of justice w/o prejudice to rts of litigants & to expedite litigation w/factual realities & legal consequences rather than sentimentality &
at minimum cost. They’re liberally construed. ROC Rule 2 Sec. 5 requires that symbolisms. Case cited is not applicable either since it involves change in
joinder will not violate rules on jurisdiction, venue & joinder of parties and that surname based on embarrassment caused by such. Sol Gen was correct in
cause of action arise out of same contract, transaction or relation bet parties or saying that an instance where natural parent names a child for the first time is
for money demands or of same nature & character. Allowed when there’s different from instance where adoptive parents wish to disregard & change a
some substantial unity between causes – unity in the problem & child’s name given by the natural parents. Former is proper whereas latter is
common ques of law & fact involved. not since the right to name a child has already been exercised by the natural
 SC findings: petitions don’t meet test of conceptual unity demanded to allow
their joinder under SC’s rules. Sol Gen was correct in saying that adoption
parents. Of course, adoptive parents have the privilege to change proper/given
name, only such must be done in a proper petition for change of name.

Held: Modified. Child will be known as Kevin Earl Andrade – Munson unless later on
changed in accordance w/law. Other aspects, RTC affirmed.

Dempsey vs. RTC

Santos vs. CA