RENATO LAZATIN alias RENATO STA.
Lazatin), the petitioner
CLARA, petitioner
v Lazatin and was later adopted by
HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE C. CAMPOS,
JR., NORA L. DE LEON, BERNARDO DE
LEON, ARLENE DE LEON and IRMA L.
VELOSO, respondents
FACTS:
- Margarita de Asis died, leaving a
holographic will providing for a
legacy ofcash, jewelry, and stocks to
respondent Arlene de Leon, a
granddaughter; a legacy of support
to Rodolfo Gallardo, a son of her late
sister; and a legacy of education to
Ramon Sta. Clara, son of petitioner
Renato Lazatin.
- During her lifetime, Margarita de
Asis kept a safety deposit box at the
bank which either she or respondent
Nora de Leon (adopted daughter)
could open.
- Five days after her death, Nora
opened the safety deposit box and
removed its contents.
- Nora claims that she opened the
safety deposit box in good faith,
believing that it was held jointly by
her and her deceased mother.
- After having learned that the safety
box was opened, petitioner's son,
Ramon Sta. Clara, filed a motion in
the probate court, claiming that the
deceased had executed a will
subsequent to that submitted for
probate and demanding its
production.
- Petitioner Renato Sta. Clara filed a
motion to intervene in the estate of
Margarita de Asis as an adopted
child, on the basis of an affidavit
executed by Benjamin Lazatin
(brother of the deceased Dr.
Mariano M.
was an "illegitimate son" of Dr.
him.
- During the hearing, Renato
presented no decree of adoption in
his favor. Instead, he attempted to
prove, over private respondents'
objections, that he had recognized
the deceased spouses as his parents;
he had been supported by them until
their death;
- Respondent court first reserved its
ruling when petitioner could not
present evidence on the issue of his
alleged legal adoption, respondent
court discontinued the hearing and
gave the parties time to file
memoranda on the question of the
admissibility of the evidence sought
to be introduced by petitioner.
ISSUES:
- W/N Renato has established his
status as an adopted child.
RULING:
- NO.
- Adoption is a juridical act, a
proceeding which creates between
two persons a relationship similar to
that which results from legitimate
paternity and filiation.
- Only an adoption made through the
court, or in pursuance with the
procedure laid down under Rule 99
of the Rules of Court is valid in this
jurisdiction.
- The fact of adoption is never
presumed, but must be affirmatively
proved by the person claiming its
existence.
- The absence of proof of such order of
adoption by the court, as provided
 by the statute, cannot be substituted
by parol evidence that a child has
lived with a person, not his parents,
and has been treated as a child to
establish such adoption.
- The correct order of proof is as
follows: Existence; execution; loss;
contents; although this order may be
changed if necessary in the
discretion of the court.
- As earlier pointed out, petitioner
failed to establish the former
existence of the adoption paper and
its subsequent loss or destruction.
- Secondary proof may only be
introduced if it has first been
established that such adoption paper
really existed and was lost.