1|Page

SPECIAL PROCEEDING CASES: BAR+# 88># +he follo,in" cannot adopt:chanro'&es irtual &a, li'rar( G.R. No. L-26476. August 31, 1970.] IN THE MATTER OF THE ADO TION OF THE MINOR !ANTIAGO !E"ERE!, DR. FERNANDO . HOFILE"A, #$% &ORA'ON DE G(IA-HOFILE"A, Petitioners-Appellants, ). RE (*LI& OF THE HILI INE!, Oppositor-Appellee. H+,to- Ho./0+1# .o- Petitioners-Appellants. !o0/,/to- G+$+-#0 .o- Oppositor-Appellee. DE&ISION DI'ON, J.2 Appeal from a decision of the Ju enile and Domestic Relations Court of !anila in Special Proceedin"s No# G$%%&%% dismissin" the petition filed '( the therein petitioners ) hereinafter referred to as appellants ) for the adoption of the minor Santia"o Se*eres# +he follo,in" facts are not disputed:chanro'&es irtual &a, li'rar( Petitioners are hus'and and ,ife# +he hus'and is a ph(sician and a professor of Pediatrics and !ental -("iene at the .ni ersit( of Santo +omas/ en"a"ed in the practice of medicine since &012 and he and his ,ife3 ha e an annual income of around P&23%%%#%%# +he( o,n not onl( the house ,here the( li e in !anila 'ut also o,n residential and a"ricultural lands in Occidental Ne"ros# +he( are childless3 'ut on Septem'er 43 &0453 the( filed a petition ,ith the Ju enile and Domestic Relations Court of !anila for the adoption of the minors Lourdes and Re(naldo 6usa(3 children of Dr# Eduardo G# 6usa( and E a -ofile*a$6usa(# On No em'er &13 &045 the a'o enamed Court "ranted the petition in a decision that has lon" 'ecome e7ecutor(# On !arch 583 &044 appellants filed ,ith the same Court a similar petition for the adoption of another minor named Santia"o Se*eres 'orn on !a( &&3 &04& to appellants9 housemaid3 :eronica E# Se*eres and a certain ;eli7 Lisondra# Since 'irth said minor had 'een and has until no, remained in the care of appellants ,ho had 'ecome so much attached to him that the( finall( decided to adopt him in accordance ,ith la,3 ,ith the full consent of the minor9s mother# After the re<uired pu'lication had 'een accomplished and notices ser ed in accordance ,ith la, to the Office of the Solicitor General and the Chief3 Office of Child =elfare3 Social =elfare Administration3 the case ,as set for hearin" and e idence ,as presented# +hereafter3 the lo,er court rendered the appealed decision dismissin" the petition upon the "round that the pro isions of Article 88>3 para"raph ?&@ of the Ci il Code prohi'its the intended adoption 'ecause appellants had alread( pre iousl( adopted the t,o minors mentioned heretofore# In the present appeal3 therefore3 the sole <uestion to 'e resol ed is ,hether or not a person ,ho alread( has an adopted child ma( still le"all( adopt another# Article 88>3 para"raph ?&@ of the Ci il Code upon ,hich the appealed decision is 'ased reads as follo,s:A"c:chanro'les#com#ph ?&@ +hose ,ho ha e le"itimate3 le"itimated3 acCno,led"ed natural children3 or natural children '(le"al fiction/#B =ell Cno,n is the rule of statutor( construction to the effect that a statute clear and unam'i"uous on its face need not 'e interpreted/ stated other,ise the rule is that onl( statutes ,ith an am'i"uous or dou'tful meanin" ma( 'e the su'Aect of statutor( interpretation ?5 Sutherland Statutor( Construction3 8rd Ed#3 Section 1>%53 p# 8&4@# Similarl( ,ell Cno,n is the rule that ,ords and phrases used in la, ,hich ha e ac<uired a precise le"al meanin" are to 'e understood in their proper technical sense unless it plainl( appears that the( ,ere not so used '( the Le"islature ?DlacC Interpretation of La,s3 5nd Ed#3 p# &25@# +he ,ords used in Article 88>?&@ of the Ci il Code in enumeratin" the persons ,ho Bcannot adoptB appear to 'e clear and unam'i"uous and ha e a clearl( defined meanin" in la,# BLe"itimate childrenB are those concei ed durin" the marria"e and3 in certain cases3 those concei ed 'efore 'ut 'orn durin" the marria"e ?1 Castan3 4th Ed#3 p# 4/ Article 5>>3 Ci il Code@# BLe"itimated childrenB are those ori"inall( natural children 'ut later considered as le"itimate '( irtue of their reco"nition '( 'oth parents and the latters9 su'se<uent marria"e ?1 Castan3 supra/ Article 5E&3 Ci il Code@# BNatural ChildrenB are children B'orn outside of ,edlocC of parents ,ho3 at the time of the conception of the former3 ,ere not dis<ualified '( an( impediment to marr( each otherB ?Article 5403 Ci il Code@# On the other hand3 BacCno,led"ed natural childrenB are natural children dul( acCno,led"ed or reco"niFed '( the father and mother Aointl(3 or '( onl( one of them ?Article 5E43 Ci il Code@# ;inall(3 Bnatural children '( le"al fictionB are Bchildren concei ed or 'orn of marria"es ,hich are oid from the 'e"innin"B ?Article 5203 Ci il Code@# +hat Badopted childrenB do not fall ,ithin the meanin" of an(one of the a'o e Cinds of descendants seems to 'e clear# As a matter of fact3 the Office of the Solicitor General3 instead of filin" a 'rief for the Repu'lic of the Philippines as appellee in this case su'mitted for the record the follo,in":A"c:chanro'les#com#ph B! A N I ; E S + A + I O N CO!ES NO= oppositor$appellee3 throu"h the undersi"ned counsel3 and to this -onora'le Court respectfull( states:chanro'&es irtual &a, li'rar( &# +hat on !arch 583 &04&3 a petition for adoption ,as filed ,ith the Ju enile G Domestic Relations Court/ 5# +hat on June &3 &0443 a decision ,as rendered '( the Ju enile G Domestic Relations Court3 dismissin" the petition on the "round that the petitioners has alread( an adopted child and therefore can no lon"er le"all( adopt another/ 8# +hat the Repu'lic of the Philippines is the oppositor$appellee in this appeal interposed '( Dr# ;ernando P# -ofile*a and CoraFon de Guia$-ofile*a from said decision of the Ju enile G Domestic Relations Court/

2|Page
rendered allo,in" appellants to adopt the minor Santia"o Se*eres as pra(ed for in their petition# =ithout costs#

1# +hat upon a careful stud( of the issues raised and discussed in petitioners$appellants9 'rief and taCin" into account on the follo,in" commentaries3 to ,it:chanro'&es irtual &a, li'rar( H!a( a person ,ho has an adopted child still adopt anotherI +his article does not pre ent him from doin" so9# ) ?Capistrano3 Ci il Code of the Philippines &0>% ed# :ol# &3 p3 8%>/ ;rancisco3 Ci il Code of the Philippines3 Annotated and Commented3 &0>8 ed# :ol# &3 p 2E4@# HA person ,ith an adopted child ma( still adopt#9 ) ?Padilla3 Ci il La,3 Ci il Code Annotated &04& ed# :ol# I3 p# 2>>@# H+he la, sa(s that if (ou ha e le"itimate3 le"itimated3 acCno,led"ed natural children or natural children '( le"al fiction3 (ou cannot adopt# D( implication therefore those ,ho ha e adopted children ma( adopt#9 ?Paras3 Ci il Code of the Philippines3 Annotated3 &04> ed# :ol# I3 p# 4&5@# HIt should 'e noted that the fact that a person has ille"itimate children3 ,ho are not natural3 or adopted children3 does dis<ualif( him further from another child#9 ?+olentino3 Commentaries G Jurisprudence on the Ci il Code of the Philippines3 &0>8 ed# :ol# &3 p# 480@# H.nder the doctrine3 ho,e er3 of inclusio unius est e7clusio alterius3 the ille"itimate children3 ,ho are spurious3 and adopted children not ha in" 'een mentioned in the enumeration3 it is su'mitted that a person ,ho has an ille"itimate spurious child or an adopted child can still adopt#9 ?Co<uia3 Comments and Cases on Ci il La,3 &0>0 ed# :ol# &3 p# 800@# ,e deem it unnecessar( to su'mit oppositor$appellee9s 'rief3 and on the 'asis of petitioners$appellants9 pleadin"3 ,e are su'mittin" this case for decision# =-ERE;ORE3 it is most respectfull( pra(ed that this -onora'le Court consider this case su'mitted ,ithout oppositor$appellee9s 'rief# !anila3 Philippines3 !arch &13 &04E#Bcrala, irtua&a, li'rar( It is clear from the fore"oin" manifestation that the Office of the Solicitor General a"rees ,ith the ie,s e7pressed '( the distin"uished commentators cited therein to the effect that a person ,ho has alread( an adopted child ma( still adopt another# Reasons for the la, to the a'o e effect ma( perhaps 'e found in these considerations: the persons ,ho3 in accordance ,ith the pro isions of Article 88>?&@ of the Ci il Code3 can not adopt are related '( 'lood ,ith the children ,hose e7istence pre ents them from adoptin" an( other child/ the pro ision tooC into account the need to sa e or protect the successional or hereditar( ri"hts of li in" children related to them '( 'lood/ upon the other hand3 the adoption of a minor child does not create or esta'lish 'lood relationship 'et,een him and the adopter/ neither does the adopted child 'ecome the le"itimate or le"itimated or natural child of the adopter3 nor does he 'ecome a natural chiJd of the latter '( le"al fiction/ adoption is3 undou'tedl(3 a mere act of "enerosit( on the part of the adopter and should not pre ent the adoptin" parent or parents from carr(in" out another act of "enerosit( '( adoptin" another child# +rue3 an adopted child ac<uires successional ri"hts '( irtue of his adoption 'ut it is plain to see that such ri"ht is not 'ased on the same consideration ) 'lood relationship ) that sustains the successional ri"ht of children in relation to their natural parents# =-ERE;ORE3 the appealed decision is here'( re ersed and set aside and3 as a result3 Aud"ment is

G.R. No. 92342 O,to4+- 13, 1991 RE (*LI& OF THE HILI INE!, petitioner3 s# HON. 'ENAIDA ELE ANO, -+s/%/$g 5u%g+ o. RT& 6#0oo7#$, *-#$,8 129 #$% &ORA'ON !ANTO! (N!ALAN, respondents. The Solicitor General for petitioner. Anthony L. Po for private respondent.

ARA!, J.:p On Januar( 83 &00%3 pri ate respondent CoraFon Santos Punsalan filed a erified petition for adoption 'efore the Re"ional +rial Court of Caloocan Cit(3 Dranch CKK:III pra(in" that after due notice and hearin"3 the minors PinC( GonFales Punsalan3 the dau"hter of her full 'lood 'rother3 and Ell(n !ae Punsalan .r'ano3 the dau"hter of her full 'lood sister3 'e declared her dau"hters '( adoption for all intents and purposes# On Januar( >3 &00%3 ho,e er3 pri ate respondent filed a B!O+ION ;OR +ALING O; DEPOSI+IONB on the "round that she recei ed an ur"ent call from the .nited Nations Office in Gene a3 S,itFerland re<uirin" her to report for ,orC on Januar( &E3 &00%3 so much so that she ,ill not 'e a'le to testif( at the hearin" of her petition (et to 'e scheduled '( the respondent Aud"e# On Januar( 23 &00%3 the respondent Aud"e "ranted the motion and ordered that notice of the taCin" of the deposition on Januar( &53 &00% at &%:%% a#m# 'e furnished to the OSG ?the onl( Cno,n oppositor in the case@# On the same date3 the respondent Aud"e issued an order settin" the hearin" for the petition for adoption on ;e'ruar( 5E3 &00% at &%:%% a#m# and directed the pu'lication of the said order once a ,eeC for three ?8@ consecuti e ,eeCs in a ne,spaper of "eneral circulation in !etro !anila# A cop( of said order as ,ell as a cop( of the said petition for adoption ,as liCe,ise sent to the OSG# On Januar( &53 &00%3 pri ate respondentMs deposition ,as taCen# Despite notice3 no representati e from the OSG appeared to oppose the taCin" of the deposition# +he OSG3 ho,e er3 su'se<uentl( filed an BOpposition to the DepositionB3 a errin" that Section & of Rule 51 of theRules of Court allo,s deposition '( lea e of Court after Aurisdiction has 'een o'tained o er an( defendant or propert( su'Aect of the action# Since the Aurisdictional re<uirement of pu'lication has not 'een complied ,ith3 the OSG "oes on to ar"ue3 the lo,er court had not (et ac<uired Aurisdiction o er the defendant so much so that the taCin" of the deposition cannot (et 'e allo,ed at this sta"e#

3|Page
On ;e'ruar( &13 &00%3 the respondent Aud"e denied the said Opposition# !ean,hile3 on ;e'ruar( 5E3 &00%3 after the notice of the hearin" for the petition for adoption had 'een dul( pu'lished in +he !anila Chronicle in accordance ,ith la, ?E7hi'its BPB3 BNB3 BRB3 BSB and B+B@3 counsel for pri ate respondent presented e idence consistin" of testimonies of ,itnesses and documentar( e7hi'its3 sho,in": that pri ate respondent is a resident of Caloocan Cit(3 'ut is presentl( residin" at 84 A enue del +illeuis3 &5%8 Gene a3 S,itFerland ,here she is emplo(ed '( the .nited Nations as Statistical Assistant ,ith a monthl( salar( of E3>%% S,iss ;rancs ?E7h# BLB@/ that she seeCs to adopt as her children the minors PinC( GonFales Punsalan and Ell(n !ae Punsalan .r'ano ,ho are her nieces of the full 'lood/ that she has 'een taCin" care of said minors for the past se eral (ears '( ,a( of "i in" them moral3 material and spiritual support/ that the( ha e "ro,n to lo e each other/ that the parents '( nature of the said minors as ,ell as the minors themsel es ha e "i en their consent to the adoption ?E7hs# BGB3 B-B3 BIB and BJB@/ and that the Department of Social =elfare and De elopment social ,orCer has fa ora'l( recommended the adoption# A"ain3 despite notice3 the OSG failed to appear in the said hearin" and in all the su'se<uent hearin"s for the petition for adoption# On Jul( &53 &00%3 the respondent Aud"e "ranted the petition for adoption ?p# 003 Rollo@# +he OSG filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision 'ut the respondent Aud"e denied the same# -ence3 the instant petition for certiorari# In 'rief3 the ar"ument of the OSG is that depositions should not 'e allo,ed in adoption proceedin"s until the pu'lication re<uirement has 'een full( complied ,ith# In support of its position3 the OSG cites Rule 51 Section & of the Rules of Court3 ,hich pro ides ) Section &# Depositions pending action, when may be taken# ) y leave of co!rt after "!risdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the s!b"ect of the action, or witho!t s!ch leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of any party, by deposition !pon oral e#amination or written interrogatories# ?emphasis supplied@ +he petition has no merit# +he rule cited '( the OSG is inapplica'le to the case at 'ar# =hile it is true that in an action in personam3 personal ser ice of summons ,ithin the forum or oluntar( appearance in the case is essential for the court to ac<uire Aurisdiction o er the person of the defendant3 in an adoption case ,hich in ol es the status of a person3 there is no particular defendant to speaC of since the action is one in rem# In such case3 Aurisdiction o er the person of the defendant is a non$essential condition for the taCin" of a deposition for the Aurisdiction of the court is 'ased on its po,er o er the res3 to render Aud"ment ,ith respect to such Bthin"B ?or status3 as in this case@ so as to 'ar indifferentl( all ,ho (NO, J.: Defore us is a petition for re ie, on certiorari of the decision 1 of the Re"ional +rial Court of I'a3 Oam'ales3 Dranch 403 in Special Proceedin" No# R+C$&1%$I3 entitled3 BIn the !atter of the Adoption of the !inor named Solomon Joseph AlcalaB3 raisin" a pure <uestion of la,# G.R. No. 94147 5u$+ 9, 1994 RE (*LI& OF THE HILI INE!, petitioner3 s# HONORA*LE RODOLFO TOLEDANO, /$ 8/s ,#:#,/t; #s -+s/%/$g 5u%g+ o. t8+ R+g/o$#0 T-/#0 &ou-t, T8/-% 5u%/,/#0 R+g/o$, *-#$,8 69, I4#, '#<4#0+s #$% ! O(!E! AL=IN A. &LO(!E #$% E=EL>N A. &LO(!E,respondents# The Solicitor General for petitioner. $.%. lanco for private respondents. mi"ht 'e minded to maCe an o'Aection a"ainst the ri"ht so esta'lished# ?Danco Espanol ;ilipino s# Palanca3 8E Phil# 05&/ Gre" Al'a s# de la CruF3 &E Phil# 10@# Indeed3 pu'lication of the scheduled hearin" for the petition for adoption is necessar( for the alidit( of a decree of adoption 'ut not for the purpose merel( of taCin" a deposition# In taCin" a deposition3 no su'stantial ri"hts are affected since depositions ma( or ma( not 'e presented or ma( e en 'e o'Aected to ,hen formall( offered as e idence at the trial of the main case later on# In the instant case3 =e find no a'use of discretion committed '( the respondent Aud"e in allo,in" the taCin" of pri ate respondentMs deposition# Due to ur"ent and compellin" reasons 'e(ond her control3 pri ate respondent could not 'e present to testif( at the trial of the main case for adoption# +he OSG3 ho,e er3 ,as notified of the scheduled taCin" of the deposition3 as ,ell as of all the hearin"s of the petition for adoption3 'ut the OSG chose not to attend ALL the said hearin"s3 ,ithout e7planation# +he OSG3 therefore3 has no reason to in oCe lacC of procedural due process# ;inall(3 it must not 'e for"otten that the philosoph( 'ehind adoption statutes is to promote the ,elfare of the child and e er( reasona'le intendment should 'e sustained to promote that o'Aecti e# ?Santos et al# s# AranFanso3 et al# &4 SCRA 8>8@# In the instant case3 the record sho,s that pri ate respondentMs adoption of the minors shall redound to the 'est interests of the latter# =-ERE;ORE3 the petition is here'( DIS!ISSED for lacC of merit# SO ORDERED

4|Page
+he sole issue for determination concerns the ri"ht of pri ate respondents spouses Al in A# Clouse and E el(n A# Clouse ,ho are aliens to adopt under Philippine La,# +here is no contro ers( as to the facts# On ;e'ruar( 5&3 &00%3 in a erified petition filed 'efore the Re"ional +rial Court of I'a3 Oam'ales3 pri ate respondents spouses Clouse sou"ht to adopt the minor3 Solomon Joseph Alcala3 the (oun"er 'rother of pri ate respondent E el(n A# Clouse# In an Order issued on !arch &53 &00%3 the petition ,as set for hearin" on April &23 &00%# +he said Order ,as pu'lished in a ne,spaper of "eneral circulation in the pro ince of Oam'ales and Cit( of Olon"apo for three ?8@ consecuti e ,eeCs# +he principal e idence disclose that pri ate respondent Al in A# Clouse is a natural 'orn citiFen of the .nitedStates of America# -e married E el(n3 a ;ilipino on June 13 &02& at Olon"apo Cit(# On Au"ust &03 &0223 E el(n 'ecame a naturaliFed citiFen of the .nited States of America in Guam# +he( are ph(sicall(3 mentall(3 morall(3 and financiall( capa'le of adoptin" Solomon3 a t,el e ?&5@ (ear old minor# Since &02& to &0213 then from No em'er 53 &020 up to the present3 Solomon Joseph Alcala ,as and has 'een under the care and custod( of pri ate respondents# Solomon "a e his consent to the adoption# -is mother3 Ner( Alcala3 a ,ido,3 liCe,ise consented to the adoption due to po ert( and ina'ilit( to support and educate her son# !rs# Nila CoraFon Pronda3 the social ,orCer assi"ned to conduct the -ome and Child Stud(3 fa ora'l( recommended the "rantin" of the petition for adoption# ;indin" that pri ate respondents ha e all the <ualifications and none of the dis<ualifications pro ided '( la, and that the adoption ,ill redound to the 'est interest and ,elfare of the minor3 respondent Aud"e rendered a decision on June 5%3 &00%3 disposin" as follo,s: =-ERE;ORE3 the Court "rants the petition for adoption filed '( Spouses Al in A# Clouse and E el(n A# Clouse and decrees that the said minor 'e considered as their child '( adoption# +o this effect3 the Court "i es the minor the ri"hts and duties as the le"itimate child of the petitioners# -enceforth3 he shall 'e Cno,n as SOLO!ON ALCALA CLO.SE# +he Court dissol es parental authorit( 'esto,ed upon his natural parents and ests parental authorit( to the herein petitioners and maCes him their le"al heir# Pursuant to Article 84 of P#D# 4%8 as amended3 the decree of adoption shall 'e effecti e as of the date ,hen the petition ,as filed# In accordance ,ith Article >8 of the same decree3 let this decree of adoption 'e recorded in the correspondin" "o ernment a"enc(3 particularl( the Office of the Local Ci il Re"istrar of !erida3 Le(te ,here the minor ,as 'orn# +he said office of the Local Ci il Re"istrar is here'( directed to issue an amended certificate of li e 'irth to the minor adopted '( the petitioners# Let copies of this decision 'e furnished ?sic@ the petitioners3 DS=D3 Oam'ales Dranch3 Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Local Ci il Re"istrar of !erida3 Le(te# SO ORDERED# 2 Petitioner3 throu"h the Office of the Solicitor General appealed to us for relief3 contendin": +-E LO=ER CO.R+ ERRED IN GRAN+ING +-E PE+I+ION ;OR ADOP+ION O; AL:IN AND E:EL6N CLO.SE3 DECA.SE +-E6 ARE NO+ N.ALI;IED +O ADOP+ .NDER P-ILIPPINE LA=# =e rule for petitioner# .nder Articles &21 and &2> of E7ecuti e Order ?E#O#@ No# 5%03 other,ise Cno,n as B+he ;amil( Code of the PhilippinesB3 pri ate respondents spouses Clouse are clearl( 'arred from adoptin" Solomon Joseph Alcala# Article &213 para"raph ?8@ of E7ecuti e Order No# 5%0 e7pressl( enumerates the persons ,ho are not <ualified to adopt3 vi&#: ?8@ An alien3 e7cept: ?a@ A former ;ilipino citiFen ,ho seeCs to adopt a relati e '( consan"uinit(/ ?'@ One ,ho seeCs to adopt the le"itimate child of his or her ;ilipino spouse/ or ?c@ One ,ho is married to a ;ilipino citiFen and seeCs to adopt Aointl( ,ith his or her spouse a relati e '( consan"uinit( of the latter# Aliens not included in the fore"oin" e7ceptions ma( adopt ;ilipino children in accordance ,ith the rules on inter$countr( adoption as ma( 'e pro ided '( la,# +here can 'e no <uestion that pri ate respondent Al in A# Clouse is not <ualified to adopt Solomon Joseph Alcala under an( of the e7ceptional cases in the afore<uoted pro ision# In the first place3 he is not a former ;ilipino citiFen 'ut a natural 'orn citiFen of the .nited States of America# In the second place3 Solomon Joseph Alcala is neither his relati e '( consan"uinit( nor the le"itimate child of his spouse# In the third place3 ,hen pri ate respondents spouses Clouse Aointl( filed the petition to adopt Solomon Joseph Alcala on ;e'ruar( 5&3 &00%3 pri ate respondent E el(n A# Clouse ,as no lon"er a ;ilipino citiFen# She lost her ;ilipino citiFenship ,hen she ,as naturaliFed as a citiFen of the .nited States in &022# Pri ate respondent E el(n A# Clouse3 on the other hand3 ma( appear to <ualif( pursuant to para"raph 8?a@ of Article &21 of E#O# 5%0# She ,as a former ;ilipino citiFen# She sou"ht to adopt her (oun"er 'rother# .nfortunatel(3 the petition for adoption cannot 'e "ranted in her fa or alone ,ithout iolatin" Article &2> ,hich mandates a Aoint adoption '( the hus'and and ,ife# It reads: Article &2># -us'and and ,ife must Aointl( adopt3 e7cept in the follo,in" cases: ?&@ =hen one spouse seeCs to adopt his o,n ille"itimate child/ or ?5@ =hen one spouse seeCs to adopt the le"itimate child of the other#

5|Page
Article &2> re<uires a Aoint adoption '( the hus'and and ,ife3 a condition that must 'e read alon" to"ether ,ith Article &21# 3 +he historical e olution of this pro ision is clear# Presidential Decree 4%8 ?+he Child and 6outh =elfare Code@3 pro ides that hus'and and ,ife Bma(B Aointl( adopt# 4 E7ecuti e Order No# 0& issued on Decem'er &E3 &024 amended said pro ision of P#D# 4%8# It demands that 'oth hus'and and ,ife BshallB Aointl( adopt if one of them is an alien# 3 It ,as so crafted to protect ;ilipino children ,ho are put up for adoption# +he ;amil( Code reiterated the rule '( re<uirin" that hus'and and ,ife BmustB Aointl( adopt3 e7cept in the cases mentioned 'efore# .nder the said ne, la,3 Aoint adoption '( hus'and and ,ife is mandator(# 6 +his is in consonance ,ith the concept of Aoint parental authorit( o er the child3 ,hich is the ideal situation# 7 As the child to 'e adopted is ele ated to the le el of a le"itimate child3 it is 'ut natural to re<uire the spouses to adopt Aointl(# +he rule also insures harmon( 'et,een the spouses# 9 In a distinctl( similar case3 ,e held: As amended '( E7ecuti e Order 0&3 Presidential Decree No# 4%83 had thus made it mandator( for 'oth the spouses to Aointl( adopt ,hen one of them ,as an alien# +he la, ,as silent ,hen 'oth spouses ,ere of the same nationalit(# +he ;amil( Code has resol ed an( possi'le uncertaint(# Article &2> thereof e7presses the necessit( for a Aoint adoption '( the spouses e7cept in onl( t,o instances ) ?&@ =hen one spouse seeCs to adopt his o,n ille"itimate child/ or ?5@ =hen one spouse seeCs to adopt the le"itimate child of the other# It is in the fore"oin" cases ,hen Article &24 of the Code3 on the parental authorit(3 can aptl( find "o ernance# Article &24# In case hus'and and ,ife Aointl( adopt or one spouse adopts the le"itimate child of the other3 Aointl( parental authorit( shall 'e e7ercised '( the spouses in accordance ,ith this Code# 9 Article &2> is all too clear and cate"orical and there is no room for its interpretation# +here is onl( room for application# 10 =e are not una,are that the modern trend is to encoura"e adoption and e er( reasona'le intendment should 'e sustained to promote that o'Aecti e# 11 Adoption is "eared more to,ards the promotion of the ,elfare of the child and enhancement of his opportunities for a useful and happ( life# 12 It is not the 'ureaucratic technicalities 'ut the interest of the child that should 'e the principal criterion in adoption cases# 13 E7ecuti e Order 5%0 liCe,ise upholds that the interest and ,elfare of the child to 'e adopted should 'e the paramount consideration# +hese considerations not,ithstandin"3 the records of the case do not e ince an( fact as ,ould Austif( us in allo,in" the adoption of the minor3 Solomon Joseph Alcala3 '( pri ate respondents ,ho are aliens# =-ERE;ORE3 the petition is GRAN+ED# +he decision of the lo,er court is RE:ERSED and SE+ ASIDE# No costs# SO ORDERED G.R. No. L-3390 D+,+<4+- 27, 1910 E(FEMIO M(MAR, plaintiff$appellee3 s# &AN(TO DIE ARINE, defendant$appellant# 'larin and Alonso for appellant. (o appearance for appellee.

MORELAND, J.: +his is an action dama"es for the ,ron"ful destruction of a fish trap placed in the ,aters of the municipalit( of +ali'on3 Pro ince of Dohol# +he plaintiff alle"es that from the month of !arch3 &0%43 until ;e'ruar(3 &0%E3 and especiall( durin" the month last mentioned3 the plaintiff had 'een solicitin" and o'tainin" from the municipalit( of +ali'on a license to place a fish trap in the localit( Cno,n as Lo'un"an3 municipalit( of +ali'on3 Pro ince of Dohol/ that in ;e'ruar(3 &0%E3 the plaintiff had located at fish trap in the ,aters a'o e named3 ha in" a proper license for such pri ile"e/ that the defendant3 Cno,in" that fact3 placed another fish trap in the same localit(/ that on the &1th of ;e'ruar(3 &0%E3 the defendant remo ed or caused to 'e remo ed from the place in ,hich it then ,as the fish trap 'elon"in" to the plaintiff3 and transferred or caused to 'e transferred the materials composin" such fish trap to a 'uildin"'elon"in" to the municipalit( of +ali'on/ that3 '( reason of the defendantMs ,ron"ful act3 the plaintiff had suffered dama"es in the sum of P&3>%%3 the alue of the materials remo ed3 and for the loss of the profits ,hich he ,ould ha e made had 'een permitted peacefull( to operate his trap3 in the sum of P83%%%# lawphil.net +he defendant3 ans,erin" the complaint3 alle"ed that he had o'tained a license to construct a fish trap in the localit( heretofore descri'ed on the &&th da( of Decem'er3 &0%4/ that3 after o'tainin" said license and 'efore an(one else had place a fish trap in the localit( to ,hich his license referred3 he constructed and placed in said localit( a fish trap in conformit( ,ith the terms of said license3 and 'e"an to operate the same/ that the fish trap 'ein" thus located and in operation3 the plaintiff3 ille"all( and ,ithout ,arrant of la,3 and in iolation of the ordinances of the municipalit(3 and for the purpose of inAurin" the defendant3 on the 5Eth da( of Decem'er3 &0%43 constructed his trap in the same localit(3 placin" the same in relation to the location of the defendantMs trap at a place prohi'ited '( the ordinances of the municipalit(/ that '( reason of such iolation of said ordinances3 the defendant complained to the proper authorities3 the plaintiff ,as arrested for said iolation3 ,as con icted and fined in accordance ,ith the pro isions of la,#

6|Page
It seems from the e idence introduced on the trial that the defendant3 as he alle"es3 had3 on the &&th da( of Decem'er3 o'tained a license to place a fish trap in the localit( alread( mentioned3 and3 in pursuance of said license3 had constructed his fish trap to completion prior to the 51th da( of Decem'er/ that prior to the said 51th da( of Decem'er the plaintiff in this case3 ,ithout a license3 had 'e"un to construct a fish trap in the same3 localit(3 'ut ,ithin &>% feet of the fish trap of the defendant3 and said fish trap ,as constructed or in process ofconstruction on said 51th da( of Decem'er/ that on said date the plaintiff o'tained his license to place the fish trap the construction of ,hich he had 'e"un some time 'efore witho!t a license# It seems also from the proofs that there e7isted an ordinance in the municipalit( of +ali'on ,hich prohi'ited one from 'uildin" a fish trap ,ithout a license3 and also from 'uildin" a fish trap ,ith a license ,ithin &>% feet of a fish trap alread( constructed or in process of construction# It ,ill 'e thus o'ser ed that3 at the time the plaintiff 'e"an to construct his fish trap and up to the 51th da( of Decem'er aforesaid3 he ,as actin" in iolation of the ordinances of the municipalit(3 in that he had not (et o'tained a license to construct or to 'e"in the construction of a fish trap# !oreo er3 e en thou"h he had a license3 he ,as still iolatin" the ordinances of the illa"e in that he ,as constructin" his trap ,ithin &>% feet of the defendantMs# It appears further that at the time the defendant had completed his fish trap3 the plaintiff had recei ed no license to construct one# +herefore3 e er( act he performed in the construction of his trap ,as in iolation of the la, and he could3 accordin"l(3 ac<uire no ri"hts a"ainst the municipalit( or a"ainst the defendant '( such acts# ;rom the facts pro ed it appears that the defendants tooC no part directl( or indirectl( in the remo in" of plaintiffMs fish trap# +hat ,as done '( the municipal police under the directions of the municipalit(# +he defendant ,as present at the time the remo al ,as effected3 'ut3 so3 far as appears from the record3 tooC no part therein and "a e no directions in relation thereto# +he learned trial court upon the trial found in fa or of the plaintiff3 a,ardin" him a Aud"ment a"ainst the defendant for dama"es in the sum of P1%%3 ,ith interest thereon from the date of the presentation of the complaint#lawphil.net ;rom the facts alread( presented3 and the reasons a'o e e7pressed3 ,e are of the opinion that the Aud"ment of the learned trial court must 'e re ersed and the defendant a'sol ed from lia'ilit( in relation to the facts set out in plaintiffMs complaint# +he Aud"ment of the court 'elo, is accordin"l( re ersed3 ,ithout special findin"s as to costs# So ordered# Arellano, '. )., Torres, )ohnson and Trent, ))., conc!r. G.R. No. L-3291 5u$+ 29, 1931 Assistant Solicitor General *rancisco 'arreon and +ffice of the Solicitor )es!s A. Avance,a for appellee. ARA!, C. J.2 On April 5>3 &01E3 +ran<uilino Ro ero3 comin" in a PAL plane from Dan"CoC3 arri ed at the !anila International Airport in !aCati3 RiFal3 in the e enin"# In his 'a""a"e declaration and entr(3 Ro ero listed ei"ht pieces of 'a""a"e includin" a Chinese :ase alued at fifteen pesos# -e ,as a'le to carr( a,a( part of his 'a""a"e after 'ein" e7amined '( inspector Eufemio Pa'lo and after pa(in" the necessar( duties and other le"al char"es# +he rest of Ro eroMs 'a""a"e3 includin" the Chinese ase3 ,ere to 'e e7amined the ne7t da(# On April 543 &01E3 in the mornin"3 James -# Leefe ?chief of the Customs Secret Ser ice Di ision@ ,ent to the parcel section of the Dureau of Customs and3 heedin" suspicions of his a"ents that the Chinese ase contained some concealed articles in ie, of its unusuall( thicC 'ottom3 then and there decided to cracC open said ase# +his operation led to the disco er( of a tin can in"eniousl( hidden in the false 'ottom of the ase containin" 5>0 Ae,els appraised at P583E84# Ro ero did not learn of this disco er( until April 523 &01E3 ,hen he returned to the Dureau of Customs# Decause of Ro eroMs failure to declare the Ae,els3 the Collector of Customs rendered a decision a"ainst him3 the dispositi e part of ,hich reads as follo,s: In the li"ht of the fore"oin"3 this Office 'elie es and so holds that the 5>0 pieces of Ae,elr(3 su'Aect matter of this seiFure proceedin"3 ha e 'een properl( seiFed under Section &505 of the Re ised Administrati e Code and are su'Aect to forfeiture under Section &848 ?m$5@ of the same Code# -o,e er3 pursuant to the pro isions of Section &84> of the Re ised Administrati e Code3 forfeiture is here'( ,ai ed and3 in lieu thereof3 a fine in an amount e<ual to three times the appraised alue of the Ae,elr( is here'( imposed# +he Ae,elr( ma(3 therefore3 'e deli ered to +ran<uilino Ro ero upon pa(ment of the le"al duties3 compensatin" ta7 and other char"es due thereon3 plus the fine# .pon claimantMs failure to taCe deli er( of the articles3 and after this decision has 'ecome final3 the Ae,elr( shall 'e sold at pu'lic auction in accordance ,ith la, for the satisfaction of the Go ernmentMs claim as herein determined# .pon petition for re ie, filed '( +ran<uilino Ro ero3 the Court of ;irst Instance of !anila affirmed the decision of the Collector of Customs# +he case is no, 'efore us upon appeal '( Ro ero# Section &505 of the Re ised Administrati e Code pro ides that B,hene er an( article su'Aect to dut( is found in the 'a""a"e of an( person arri in" ,ithin the Philippines3 ,hich ,as not at the time for maCin" entr( of such 'a""a"e mentioned to the collector or other proper customs official 'efore ,hom such entr( ,as made '( the person maCin" entr(3 such article shall 'e seiFed3 and the person in ,hose 'a""a"e it is found ma( 'e re<uired to pa( tre'le the alue of such article unless it shall 'e esta'lished to the satisfaction of the collector that the failure to mention or declare ,as ,ithout fraud#B Appellant ar"ues3 citin" American decisions3 that Bthou"h "oods are 'rou"ht in ,ith intent to smu""le them3 the( ma( not 'e seiFed ,hile the persons importin" them ma( (et chan"e their minds and o'ser e the necessar( formalities in the due seasonB ?.nited States vs. One Pearl Chain3 &80 ;ed# >&8@/ B if at an( time ,hile entr( is 'ein" made3 and 'efore it is completed3 there is a disclosure '( the passen"er ,hich is sufficient to put the customs officer upon in<uir( as to the dutia'le character of an( of the contents of the pacCa"es3 # # # it is to 'e deemed that the articles ,ere Mmentioned to the collector 'efore ,hom such entr( ,as madeM3 not,ithstandin" the( ,ere not mentioned in the documentsB ?Dod"e vs. .nited States3 &8&

THE RE (*LI& OF THE HILI INE!, plaintiff$appellee3 s# 239 IE&E! OF 5E?ELR> @TRANA(ILINO RO=ERO, ,0#/<#$tB, defendant$appellant#

7|Page
;ed# 210@/ and Bthe offense of smu""lin" or clandestine introduction of "oods into the .nited States in iolation of la, does not include mere attempts to commit the same3 and is not committed '( the concealment of "oods on a ship enterin" the ,aters of the .nited States3 ,ith intent to smu""le them3 ,here the "oods are not taCen throu"h the lines of customs authorities3 'ut are deli ered to the customs officer on 'oard the essel itself at the time ,hen or 'efore the o'li"ation to maCe entr( and pa( the duties arisesB ?-ecC vs. .nited States3 &E5 .#S# >103 &0 Sup# Ct# 5>13 183 L# ed# >%>@# +hese authorities are clearl( not in support of appellantMs case3 'ecause the( hold in effect that proper disclosure must 'e seasona'l( made# It is pretended that appellantMs omission to declare ,as due to inad ertence or i"norance3 and his onl( e7planation is that he ,as afraid that he mi"ht 'e held up on his ,a( from the airport to his !anila residence if he tooC ,ith him the Ae,els on the ni"ht of his arri al# +his e7cuse is neither plausi'le nor con incin"# -e could ha e a oided the alle"ed contin"enc( '( disclosin" to the customs authorities the e7istence of the Ae,els and merel( re<uestin" the postponement of the inspection and deli er( of his 'a""a"e until such time as ,as con enient to him# !oreo er3 accordin" to appellant3 he ,as a'le to raise the necessar( amount to pa( the customs duties3 compensatin" ta7 and other le"al char"es on his Ae,els onl( on April 543 &01E3 ,ith the result that3 e en if he declared said articles on the ni"ht of his arri al at the airport3 he must ha e Cno,n that he ,ould not 'e a'le to pa( the duties and other le"al char"es and3 accordin"l(3 ,ould not 'rin" the Ae,els home# .pon the other hand3 the appellant did not return to the Dureau of Customs until April 523 &01E3 ,hen he could3 if he acted in "ood faith3 return sooner and declare the Ae,els3 since the disclosure could 'e made e en if he ,as not (et read( to pa( the correspondin" duties# Appellant claims that3 under section &85& of the Re ised Administrati e Code3 he could ha e impliedl( a'andoned the ase ,ithout an( lia'ilit(# Section &85& is inapplica'le3 'ecause it refers to a'andonment of imported merchandise3 declared in an in oice# It is also contended '( the appellant3 in oCin" sections &848 ?m$5@3 &84>3 &844 and &822 of the Re ised Administrati e Code3 that the Collector of Customs cannot impose a fine "reater than the appraised alue of the seiFed article# +his contention cannot prosper3 since appellantMs case is specificall( co ered '( section &505 ,hich plainl( authoriFes the collector to re<uire the pa(ment of tre'le the alue of the seiFed article3 unless the failure to declare is ,ithout fraud# Lastl(3 there is no merit in the proposition that section &505 is repu"nant to the constitutional pro ision that e7cessi e fines shall not 'e imposed3 and that the appellant has 'een placed in dou'le Aeopard( '( reason of the case at 'ar3 'ecause he had alread( 'een con icted and fined under section 5E%8 of the Re ised Administrati e Code for the same iolation# It is sufficient to point out that this is a ci il proceedin" to enforce the collection of a surchar"e due on an imported article3 <uite distinct from appellantMs criminal lia'ilit( for his failure to declare said article# =herefore3 the appealed Aud"ment is affirmed3 ,ith costs a"ainst the appellant# So ordered#