ADAMSON UNIVERSITY

College of Law

CONFLICT OF LAWS

Topic: MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

PATERNITY, FILIATION, ADOPTION

Reporters:
Angelica C. Maqui
Delfin J. Gallardo Jr.

Submitted to:
JUDGE LADY IVY VANITY VELASCO
II. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
A. Requisites of a Valid Marriage
1) Extrinsic Validity – Extrinsic validity of the marriage as a general rule is governed by the laws of
country where the marriage is celebrated.

2) Intrinsic Validity – Intrinsic validity of the marriage on one hand is governed by the national laws
of the parties.

B. Rules on Marriage Celebrated Abroad

1. GENERAL RULE: Full Faith and Credit - “All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in
accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such,
shall also be valid in this country xxx” (Article 26 Family Code)

2. EXCEPTION/S: Marriages not Subject of Recognition - except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1),
(4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. (17a)

I. Void Marriages Under Article 35,

Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with
the consent of parents or guardians;
(2) xx
(3) xx
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41;
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the
identity of the other; and
(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.

II. Void Marriages that falls under Article 36, Chapter 3, Title I of the Family Code
(Psychological Incapacity)

III. Incestuous Marriages under Article 37, Chapter 3, Title I of the Family Code

Art. 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning,
whether relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and
(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.

IV. Void Marriages by reason of public policy under Article 38, Chapter 3, Title I of the
Family Code

Art. 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public
policy:

(1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to

the fourth civil degree;
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;

(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that
other person's spouse, or his or her own spouse.

V. Same Sex marriages (contracting parties must be male and female under Article 2,
Chapter 1, Title 1 og the Family Code)
CASE DISCUSSION:
Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee, G.R. No. 18081, 3 March 1922

FACTS:

Cheong Boo (Chinese) died intestate in Zamboanga. He left property worth nearly P100,000.

There were 2 claimants of his estate:

(1) Cheong Seng Gee, who alleged he is a legitimate child by a marriage contracted by
Cheong Boo with Tan Dit in China and
(2) Mora Adong who alleged that she was lawfully married the deceased in Basilan, and her
daughters, Payang and Rosalia.

CFI Zamboanga ruled that the proof did not sufficiently establish the Chinese marriage, but that
because Cheong Seng Gee had been admitted to the Philippines as the son of the deceased, he
should share in the estate as a natural child.

Also, it found that the marriage between the Mora Adong and the deceased had been adequately
proved but it was not a lawful marriage under Philippine law hence the daughters Payang and
Rosalia would inherit as natural children.

ISSUE:

WON the Chinese marriage was valid. NO

WON the Mohammedan marriage (contracted in the Philippines) was valid. YES

RULING:

FIRST ISSUE: Validity of the Chinese marriage – NO, the Chinese marriage was NOT valid.

Witnesses testified to having been present at the marriage ceremony with Tan Dit. Further, a
document in Chinese was also presented as evidence to prove that the marriage was in fact
celebrated.

The Court found that Cheong Boo remained in China for 1 year and 4 months after his marriage
during which time there was born to him and his wife a child named Cheong Seng Gee. He then
left for the Philippines where he took to himself a concubine Mora with whom he had 2 children.

Cheong Seng Gee followed his father and it appears to have been permitted to land in the Philippine
Islands as the son of Cheong Boo. As found by the lower court, the proof did not sustain the
allegation of the claimant Cheong Seng Gee, that Cheong Boo had married in China. It also noted
that the witnesses stated that in the year 1895, when Cheong Boo was supposed to have
been in China, he was in reality in Jolo, in the Philippines.

As provided for in Section IV of the Marriage Law (General Order No. 68): "All marriages contracted
without these Islands, which would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were
contracted, are valid in these Islands." To establish a valid foreign marriage pursuant to this comity
provision, it is first necessary to prove before the courts of the Islands the existence of the foreign
law as a question of fact, and it is then necessary to prove the alleged foreign marriage by
convincing evidence.

IN THIS CASE, there was no competent testimony as to what the laws of Amoy, China concerning
marriage were in 1895. There is lacking proof as to produce a moral conviction of the existence of
the alleged prior Chinese marriage.

SECOND ISSUE: Validity of the Philippine marriage – YES, the Mohammedan Marriage is valid.

He was married to Mora Adong in Basilan according to the ceremonies prescribed by the book on
marriage of the Koran, by the Mohammedan Iman (priest) Habubakar. It was established by one of the
parties to the marriage, the Mora Adong, by the Iman who solemnized the marriage, and by other
eyewitnesses, one of whom was the father of the bride, and another, the chief of the rancheria, now a
 municipal councilor. Further, the deceased complied with Quranic law by giving to the bride a dowry of
P250 in money and P250 in goods.

From the marriage day until the death of Cheong Boo, the Chinaman and the Mora Adong cohabited as
husband and wife and had 5 children (but the only children living with them were the 2 daughters
previously mentioned). During his lifetime, Cheong Boo treated Adong as his lawful wife and even stated
this relationship in several private and public documents including decrees of registration.

Three sections of the Marriage Law (General Order No. 68) must be taken into consideration:

(1) Section V of the Marriage Law provides that "Marriage may be solemnized by either a judge of
any court inferior to the Supreme Court, justice of the peace, or priest or minister of the Gospel
of any denomination..."

In this case, "Priest," according to the lexicographers, means one especially consecrated
to the service of a divinity and considered as the medium through whom worship, prayer,
sacrifice, or other service is to be offered to the being worshipped, and pardon, blessing,
deliverance, etc., obtained by the worshipper, as a priest of Baal or of Jehovah; a Buddhist
priest. "Minister of the Gospel" means all clergymen of every denomination and faith. A
"denomination" is a religious sect having a particular name. A Mohammedan Iman is a
"priest or minister of the Gospel," and Mohammedanism is a "denomination," within
the meaning of the Marriage Law.

(2) Marriage Law, No. VI, provides that "No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required,
but the parties must declare, in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage, that they
take each other as husband and wife."

In this instance, there is no question of capacity. There is also no doubt as to consent.

While it is true that during the Mohammedan ceremony, the remarks of the priest were
addressed more to the elders than to the participants, it is likewise true that the Chinaman
and the Mora woman did in fact take each other to be husband and wife and did thereafter
live together as husband and wife.

(3) Marriage Law, Section IX, reads as follows: "No marriage heretofore solemnized before any
person professing to have authority therefor shall be invalid for want of such authority or on
account of any informality, irregularity, or omission, if it was celebrated with the belief of the
parties, or either of them, that he had authority and that they have been lawfully married."

In this case, the Court ruled that marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but
it is a new relation, an institution in the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested.
Consequently, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony.

Section IX of the Marriage Law is in the nature of a curative provision intended to safeguard
society by legalizing prior marriages. There is no substantial reason for denying to the
legislative power the right to remove impediments to an effectual marriage. If the legislative
power can declare what shall be valid marriages, it can render valid, marriages which,
when they took place, were against the law.

Hence, the Court regard the evidence as producing a moral conviction of the existence of
the Mohammedan marriage. Also, the Court regard the provisions of section IX of the
Marriage law as validating marriages performed according to the rites of the Mohammedan
religion.
C. Divorce

GENERAL RULE: Divorce is not allowed in the Philippines as against the public policy.

EXCEPTION/S:
1. Limited Recognition of Divorce
✓ If the non-recognition thereof will work injustice and unfairness to Philippine nationals, the
same may be given limited recognition in our jurisdiction.
CASE DISCUSSION:
Van Dorn v. Romillo, G.R. No. L-68470, 8 October 1985

FACTS:

Petitioner Alice Van Dorn and private respondent Richard Upton were married in Hong Kong in 1972
and were divorced in Nevada, USA, in 1982. Private respondent filed a suit against petitioner before
the RTC Pasay for accounting of petitioner’s business, the Galleon Shop, alleging the same to be
conjugal property. Petitioner moved to dismiss on the basis of bar by previous judgment in the
divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court where private respondent acknowledged that they
had no conjugal property. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the divorce
proceedings had no effect on the case. Hence, this case.

ISSUE:

Whether the Nevada divorce decree shall be recognized by the Philippines, is thus valid.

RULING:

Yes, the Nevada divorce decree shall be valid and recognized by the Philippines.

Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that only Filipino nationals are covered by the policy against
absolute divorce, as it is considered contrary to the concept of public policy and morality. Aliens
may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they
are valid according to their national law.

In this sense, the Philippine laws recognize the validity of the Nevada divorce since as an
American citizen, private respondent is bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court which
validly exercised jurisdiction over him. Therefore, private respondent cannot sue petitioner and
cannot lay claim on the alleged conjugal property, as the former is no longer the husband of the
latter.

Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, 30 June 1989

FACTS:

Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national, were
married before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler in the Federal
Republic of Germany on Sept. 7, 1979.

After about three and a half years of marriage, Geiling initiated a divorce proceeding against
petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January, 1983. Petitioner, on the other
hand, filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXXII, on January 23, 1983. On January 15, 1986 the Schoneberg
Local Court, Federal Republic of Germany, promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure
of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to petitioner.

On June 27, 1986, or more than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, private
respondent Geiling filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that,
while still married to said respondent, petitioner "had an affair with a certain William Chia as early
as 1982 and with yet another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983". The private respondent
City Fiscal Luis Victor directed the filing of two complaints for adultery against the petitioner on
January 8, 1986. The complaints were accordingly filed and were eventually raffled to two branches
of the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

A motion to quash was filed by petitioner arguing that the court is without jurisdiction "to try and
decide the charge of adultery, which is a private offense that cannot be prosecuted de officio (sic),
since the purported complainant, a foreigner, does not qualify as an offended spouse having
obtained a final divorce decree under his national law prior to his filing the criminal complaint."
 ISSUE:

Whether or not the offended spouse who already obtained a final divorce decree has the
capacity to sue for adultery.

RULING:

NO. The offended spouse who already obtained a final divorce decree has no more capacity to
sue for adultery.

Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes
against chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended
spouse. It has long since been established, with unwavering consistency, that compliance with this
rule is a jurisdictional, and not merely a formal, requirement. While in point of strict law the
jurisdiction of the court over the offense is vested in it by the Judiciary Law, the requirement for a
sworn written complaint is just as jurisdictional a mandate since it is that complaint which starts the
prosecutory proceeding and without which the court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to try the case.

Now, the law specifically provides that in prosecutions for adultery and concubinage the person
who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse, and nobody else.

Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to institute the action, it
necessarily follows that such initiator must have the status, capacity or legal representation to do
so at the time of the filing of the criminal action.

Hence, the fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic
of Germany and said divorce and its legal effects be recognized in the Philippines such ended the
relationship between them.

2. Right to Re-marry after a Divorce

✓ Citizens of the Philippines whose foreign spouses have obtained a divorce abroad are
capacitated to remarry under our law as stated under paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family
Code.

Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in
force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be
valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637
and 38. (17a)

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As
amended by Executive Order 227)

CASE DISCUSSION:
Republic of the Philippines v. Orbecido, G.R. No. 154380, 5 October 2005

FACTS:

Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the
Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. Their marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter.

In 1986, Cipriano’s wife left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years
later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen.

Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and
then married a certain Innocent Stanley. She, Stanley and her child by him currently live at California.
 Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2
of Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was filed. Finding merit in the petition, the court
granted the same.

However, the Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought
reconsideration. The OSG contends that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is not
applicable to the instant case because it only applies to a valid mixed marriage; that is, a marriage
celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an alien.

ISSUE:

Whether Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code apply to the case of respondent?

RULING:

YES. Paragraph 2, Article 26 of the family code will apply to the case. OSG’s contention is
therefore incorrect.

Records of the proceedings of the Family Code deliberations showed that the intent of Paragraph
2 of Article 26, according to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a member of the Civil Code Revision
Committee, is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien
spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.

Interestingly, Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van Dorn v. Romillo,
Jr.The Van Dorn case involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The Court
held therein that a divorce decree validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines,
and consequently, the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry under Philippine law through a
petition for declaratory relief.

Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we hold that
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time
of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise
be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the
marriage. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice.

In view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26
as follows:
1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner; and
2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.

The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage,
but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
the latter to remarry.

In this case, when Cipriano’s wife was naturalized as an American citizen, there was still a valid
marriage that has been celebrated between her and Cipriano. As fate would have it, the naturalized
alien wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin
requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both present in this case. Thus
Cipriano, the "divorced" Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry.

3. Recognition of Foreign Divorce, Procedure

a. May a foreigner invoke the benefit of Paragraph 2 of Article 26?

Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, 11 August 2010

FACTS:

Gerbert Corpuz, a former Filipino citizen but now a naturalized Canadian, married Daisylyn
Sto. Tomas, a Filipina. He soon left to Canada after their wedding due to work
 commitments. He returned to Philippines on April 2005 only to find out Daisylyn has an
affair with another man.

Gerbert returned to Canada to file a divorce that took effect on January 2006. Two years
later, he found another Filipina and wanted to marry her in the Philippines. He went to
Pasig City Registrar's Office to register his Canadian divorce decree but was denied
considering that his marriage with Daisylyn still subsists under Philippine law, that the
foregin divorce must be recognized judicially by the Philippine court.

Gerbert subsequently filed at the Regional Trial Court a judicial recognition of foreign
divorce but was subsequently denied since he is not the proper party and according to
Article 26 of the Civil Code, only a Filipino spouse can avail the remedy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Article 26 can also be applied to Corpuz' petition of recognition of the
foreign divorce decree

RULING: NO.

The Court held that alien spouses cannot claim the right as it is only in favor of Filipino
spouses.

The legislative intent of Article 26 is for the benefit of the clarification of the marital status
of the Filipino spouse. However, aliens are not strip to petition to the RTC for his foreign
divorce decree as it is a conclusive presumption of evidence of the authenticity of foreign
divorce decree with confirmity to the alien's national law.

The Pasig City Registrar's Office acted out of line when it registered the foreign divorce
decree without judicial order recognition.

Therefore, the registration is still deemed to be void.

b. May a divorced filed, applied for, and obtained by a Filipino spouse against her foreign
spouse be recognized in the Philippines?

Republic of the Philippines v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, 24 April 2018

FACTS:

Marelyn Tanedo Manalo was married in the Philippines to Yoshino Minoro, a

Japanese national. She divorced Minoro in Japan and a Japanese court issued
the divorce decree dated December 6, 2011.

On January 10, 2012, she filed in the RTC of Dagupan City a petition for
cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Manila, pursuant
to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. She also prayed that she be allowed to use her
maiden surname: Manalo. She claims there is an imperative need to have the entry
of marriage cancelled so that it would not appear that she is still married to a
Japanese national who is no longer married to her, and so that she shall not be
bothered and disturbed by said entry should she decide to remarry.

The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Dagupan questioned the caption of the
petition and alleges that the proper action should be a petition for recognition and
enforcement of judgment; this was admitted by Manalo and accordingly amended
the petition.

RTC Ruling: Petition denied. The divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should not
be recognized based on Article 15 of the New Civil Code.

CA Ruling: RTC ruling was overturned.

 Article 26 of the Family Code is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for
divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree they obtained makes
the latter no longer married to the former, capacitating him to remarry.

Hence, this case.

ISSUE:

Whether a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after
initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment against
his/her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry.

RULING:

YES, pursuant to Par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code. However, this case was
remanded to the RTC to allow Manalo to prove the Japanese law on divorce.

Plain-Meaning Rule or Verba Legis Rule

Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires that
there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not
demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the
proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted.

It does not distinguish whether the Filipino souse is the petitioner or the
respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding. The legislature is presumed
to know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to
have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the
statue. Verbal egis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute
there should be no departure.

The spirit of the law and the true intent of the legislature prevails

Assuming arguendo that the word “obtained” should be interpreted to

mean that the divorce proceeding must be actually initiated by the alien
spouse, still, the Court will not follow the letter of the statute when to do so
would depart from the true intent of the legislature or would otherwise yield
conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. Laws have
ends to achieve, and statutes should be so construed as not to defeat but
to carry out such ends and purposes.

The purpose of Par. 2 of Art.26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the
Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after a foreign
divorce decree that is effective in the country where it was rendered, is no
longer married to the Filipino souse. The provision is a corrective measure
to address an anomaly where the Filipino souse is tied to the marriage
while the foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her
country.

THEREFORE, the subject provision should not make a distinction. In both

instances, it is extended as a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign
divorce decree on Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien souse are severed by
the operation of the latter’s national law
III. PATERNITY, FILIATION, ADOPTION
A. Paternity and Filiation – According to Article 163 of the Family Code, the filiation of children may be by nature
or by adoption. Natural filiation may be legitimate or illegitimate

Paternity has been defined as the “civil status of a father in relation to the child”
Filiation is defined as the “relationship or tie which exists between parents and their children.”
1. Status of Children

Chapter 1. Legitimate Children

Art. 164. Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate.

Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm of the
husband or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife,
provided, that both of them authorized or ratified such insemination in a written instrument
executed and signed by them before the birth of the child. The instrument shall be recorded in
the civil registry together with the birth certificate of the child.

Art. 167. The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared
against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.

Chapter 3. Illegitimate Children

Art. 165. Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless
otherwise provided in this Code.

Chapter 4. Legitimated Children

Art. 177. Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of
the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may
be legitimated.

Art. 178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The
annulment of a viodable marriage shall not affect the legitimation.

2. Rights of Children

Chapter 1. Legitimate Children

Art. 174. Legitimate children shall have the right:

(1) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother, in conformity with the provisions of
the Civil Code on Surnames;

(2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in proper cases, their
brothers and sisters, in conformity with the provisions of this Code on Support; and

(3) To be entitled to the legitimate and other successional rights granted to them by the
Civil Code.

Chapter 2. Illegitimate Children

Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and
on the same evidence as legitimate children.

The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when
the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may
be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
 Art. 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental
authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. The
legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate
child. Except for this modification, all other provisions in the Civil Code governing
successional rights shall remain in force.

Chapter 3. Legitimated Children

Art. 179. Legitimated children shall enjoy the same rights as legitimate children.

Art. 180. The effects of legitimation shall retroact to the time of the child's birth.

Art. 181. The legitimation of children who died before the celebration of the marriage shall
benefit their descendants.

3. Parental Authority over the Child

As a rule, the father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the
persons of their common children.

In case of disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to
the contrary.

B. Adoption
1. Validity of Adoption, Governing Law

CASE DISCUSSION:

Uggi Lindamand Therkelsen v. Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. L-21951, 27 November 1964

FACTS:
Petitioners are husband and wife who were married on June 2, 1962, or hardly a year ago. The minor sought to be adopted,
is the natural child of petitioner's wife. His father was Charles Joseph Weeks, who abandoned... mother and child after the
latter's birth. He is said to have gone back to the United States. Petitioner husband is a Danish subject, who has been
granted permanent residence in the Philippines.

It does not appear that either petitioner has been convicted of a dime involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the minor
sought to be adopted has been living with them ever since the carriage of petitioners.

Petitioner husband has treated the minor as his son, and the latter calls him "Daddy". Although the possibility exists that
petitioners may yet have their own children, the adoption at... this time, before any such children is begotten, may strengthen,
rather than disrupt, future domestic relations

The court a quo denied the adoption sought. It has stated that conversely, an alien cannot adopt a Filipino unless the
adoption would make the Filipino minor a citizen of the alien's country. As petitioner husband in this case is a Danish subject,
it has to be held that he cannot legally adopt the minor. Charles Joseph Blancaflor Weeks, whose citizenship is of this
country, following that of his natural mother.
ISSUE:
• Whether or not the adoption was denied because the same would not result in the loss of the minor's Filipino
citizenship and the acquisition by him of the citizenship of his adopter.

RULING:

As pointed out by the Solicitor General in his... brief, the present Civil Code in force (Article 335) only disqualifies from being
adopters those aliens that are either (a) non-resident or (b) who are resident but the Republic of the Philippines has broken
diplomatic relations with their government. Outside of these two cases, alienage by itself alone does not disqualify a
foreigner from adopting a person under our law. Petitioners admittedly do not fall in either class.

The criterion adopted by the Court a quo would demand as a condition for the approval of the adoption that the process
should result in the acquisition, by the person adopted, of the alien citizenship of the adopting parent. This finds no support
in the law, for, as... observed by this Court in Clung Leng vs. Galang, G. R. No. L-11931, promulgated on 27 October 1958,
the citizenship of the adopter is a matter political, and not civil, in nature, and the ways in which it should be conferred lay
outside the ambit of the Civil Code.
It is not within the ambit of our civil law to determine how or when citizenship in a foreign state is to be acquired. The
disapproval of an adoption of an alien child in order to forestall circumvention of our exclusion laws does not warrant denial
of the adoption of a Filipino minor... by qualified alien adopting parents, since it is not shown that our public policy would be
thereby subverted.

Domestic Adoption R.A. 8552 Domestic Adoption

Domestic/Local Adoption-refers to the socio-legal process of placing a Filipino child who is legally free for
adoption permanently to an eligible parent/s based on the requirements stipulated in RA 8552 or the Domestic
Adoption Act of 1998 of the Philippines.
i. Who May Adopt?
Section 4. Who may adopt. – The following may adopt:

(1) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights, of good
moral character, has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; who is
emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years older
than the adoptee, and who is in a position to support and care for his children in keeping with
the means of the family. The requirement of a 16-year difference between the age of the adopter
and adoptee may be waived when the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee or is the
spouse of the adoptee’s parent;

(2) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above-stated for Filipino nationals:
Provided, That his country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines, that he
has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the
petition for adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered, that he
has been certified by his diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate government agency to
have the legal capacity to adopt in his country, and that his government allows the adoptee to
enter his country as his adopted child. Provided, further, That the requirements on residency
and certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt in his country may be waived for the
following:

a. a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4th)
degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
b. one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino spouse; or
c. one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his
spouse a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity
of the Filipino spouse.

(3) The guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the guardianship and clearance
of his financial accountabilities.

Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:

a. if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of one spouse by

the other spouse; or
b. if one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child: Provided,
however, That the other spouse has signified his consent thereto;
or
c. if the spouses are legally separated from each other.

In case husband and wife jointly adopt or one spouse adopts the illegitimate child of the
other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses.

ii. Who May Be Adopted?

Section 5. Who may be adopted. – The following may be adopted:

 1. Any person below eighteen (18) years of age who has been voluntarily
committed to the Department under Articles 154, 155 and 156 of P.D. No.
603 or judicially declared available for adoption;
2. The legitimate child of one spouse, by the other spouse;
3. An illegitimate child, by a qualified adopter to raise the status of the former
to that of legitimacy;
4. A person of legal age regardless of civil status, if, prior to the adoption,
said person has been consistently considered and treated by the adopters
as their own child since minority;
5. A child whose adoption has been previously rescinded; or
6. A child whose biological or adoptive parents have died: Provided, That no
proceedings shall be initiated within six (6) months from the time of death
of said parents.
7. A child not otherwise disqualified by law or these rules.

iii. Procedure for Domestic Adoption

Simulated Birth Rectification Act or RA No. 11222

It is an Act Allowing the Rectification of Simulated Birth Records and Prescribing Administrative
Adoption Proceedings for the Purpose. R.A. 11222 provides for an administrative process of adoption for
children whose birth records were simulated but were treated by the adoptive parents as their own children.

It can be inferred as a rule that Simulation of birth is a criminal offense under Article 347 of the
Revised Penal Code, punishable by imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day, up to 12 years. R.A. 11222 expressly
exempts from criminal, civil, and administrative liability those who simulated the birth record of a child prior to
the effectivity of the law.

Thus, this law specifically provides the correction of the simulated birth record as long as the falsity
that was perpetrated is proved to have been made in pursuit of the child's best interest and that the simulated
parents have treated the child in question as their own.
C. Foreign Adoptions R.A. 8043 Inter-Country Adoption

CASE DISCUSSION:

SUZUKI V. SOLICITOR GENERAL

G.R. No. 212302, 2 September 2020
FACTS:

Karl William Yuta was born to a Japanese father and a Filipino mother. Petioner’s parents were married in 1987. Based on
the records, Karl was a Filipino citizens based on his identification certificate. Subsequently, his parents got divorced.
Petitioner’s mother married another Japanese national, the marriage was done in the Philippines. After the marriage,
petitioner who was then 16 yrs old was adopted by his mother’s new husband based on Japanese law. When Karl turned
24 yrs old, he seeks his adoption to be recognized in the Philippines where he filed a Judicial Recognition of Foreign
Adoption Decree before the RTC of Marikina City. Meanwhile, the RTC issued an Order for the OSG to file its comment on
the petition. OSG then submitted its opposition alleging that the present legislation shows a strong intent to regulate adoption
by aliens. OSG said that petitioner’s adoption is not in accordance with the law, thus, should not be allowed.

RTC issued an order dismissing the petition being contrary to law and public policy. Immediately, petitioner filed a Motion
for Reconsideration but the same was denied. Aggrieved, petitioner filed before the Court for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 on pure question of law.

ISSUE:
• Whether or not the foreign adoption was valid.

RULING:

YES. The foreign adoption was valid.

The RTC erroneously ruled that a foreign judgment of adoption of a Filipino citizen cannot be judicially recognized based
on the view that such recognition would render nugatory the Philippine laws on adoption. It bears to emphasize that there
are two parties involved in an adoption process: the adopter and the adoptee. The RTC in this case failed to consider that
Hayashi, the adopter, is a Japanese citizen.

Article 15 of the Civil Code states that "laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity
of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad." Owing to this nationality principle, the
Philippine laws on adoption are thus binding on petitioner. However, with respect to the case of Hayashi, who is a Japanese
citizen, it bears stressing that the Philippine courts are precluded from deciding on his "family rights and duties, or on [his]
status, condition and legal capacity" concerning the foreign judgment to which he is a party.

Moreso, as already established, the adoption by an alien of the legitimate child of his/her Filipino spouse is valid and legal
based on Article 184 (3) (b) of the Family Code and Section 7 (b) (i), Article III of RA 8552.
Thus, as to the foreign judgment of adoption obtained by Hayashi, if it is proven as a fact, the Philippine courts are limited
to the determination of whether to extend its effect to petitioner, the Filipino party.

D. Adoption by Resident or Non-Resident Alien –

1. Who May Adopt?

R.A. 8552 R.A. 8043

Section 7. Who may adopt –
(b) Any alien possessing the same
qualifications as above stated for Filipino
nationals: Provided, That his/her country has
diplomatic relations with the Republic of the
Philippines, that he/she has been living in
the Philippines for at least three (3)
continuous years prior to the filing of the
application for adoption and maintains
such residence until the adoption decree
is entered, that he/she has been certified by
his/her diplomatic or consular office or any
appropriate government agency that he/she
has the legal capacity to adopt in his/her
country, and that his/her government allows
the adoptee to enter his/her country as his/her
adopted son/daughter.
Sec. 9. Who May Adopt. — An alien or a
Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad
may file an application for inter-country
adoption of a Filipino child if he/she:
(a) is at least twenty-seven (27) years of age
and at least sixteen (16) years older than the
child to be adopted, at the time of application
unless the adopter is the parent by nature of
the child to be adopted or the spouse of such
parent:
(b) if married, his/her spouse must jointly file
for the adoption;
(c) has the capacity to act and assume all
rights and responsibilities of parental authority
under his national laws, and has undergone
the appropriate counseling from an accredited
counselor in his/her country;

(d) has not been convicted of a crime involving

moral turpitude;

(e) is eligible to adopt under his/her national

law;

(f) is in a position to provide the proper care

and support and to give the necessary moral
values and example to all his children,
including the child to be adopted;

(g) agrees to uphold the basic rights of the

child as embodied under Philippine laws, the
U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child,
and to abide by the rules and regulations
issued to implement the provisions of this Act;
 (h) comes from a country with whom the
Philippines has diplomatic relations and
whose government maintains a similarly
authorized and accredited agency and that
adoption is allowed under his/her national
laws; and

(i) possesses all the qualifications and none of

the disqualifications provided herein and in
other applicable Philippine laws.

2. Who May Be Adopted?

R.A. 8552 R.A. 8043

Section 8. Who May Be Adopted. – The
following may be adopted:
(a) Any person below eighteen (18) years of
age who has been administratively or
judicially declared available for adoption;
Sec. 8. Who May be Adopted. — Only a
legally free child may be the subject of inter-
country adoption. In order that such child may
be considered for placement.

(b) The legitimate son/daughter of one spouse

by the other spouse;

(c) An illegitimate son/daughter by a qualified

adopter to improve his/her status to that of
legitimacy;

(d) A person of legal age if, prior to the

adoption, said person has been consistently
considered and treated by the adopter(s) as
his/her own child since minority;

(e) A child whose adoption has been

previously rescinded; or

(f) A child whose biological or adoptive

parent(s) has died: Provided, That no
proceedings shall be initiated within six (6)
months from the time of death of said
parent(s).

3. Procedure for Adoption

R.A. 8552 R.A. 8043

Sec. 10. Where to File Application. — An

application to adopt a Filipino child shall be
filed either with the Philippine Regional Trial
Court having jurisdiction over the child, or with
the Board, through an intermediate agency,
whether governmental or an authorized and
accredited agency, in the country of the
prospective adoptive parents, which
application shall be in accordance with the
requirements as set forth in the implementing
rules and regulations to be promulgated by
the Board.