Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ISSUE: Whether or not Diwata can adopt the minor children of her
deceased brother.
HELD: NO. Diwata cannot adopt the minor children of her deceased
brother.
RATIO: Consent of the biological parent, in this case, the mother
(Amelia Ramos) is indispensible.
CA Reasons:
o Diwata failed to adduce in evidence the voluntary consent
of Amelia Ramos, the children's natural mother.
o the affidavit of consent of the petitioner's children could not
also be admitted in evidence as the same was executed in
Guam, USA and was not authenticated or
acknowledged before a Philippine consular office,
o and although petitioner has a job, she was not stable enough
to support the children.
SC: We note that in her Report, Pagbilao declared that she was able
to interview Amelia Ramos who arrived in the Philippines with her
son, John Mario in May 2002. If said Amelia Ramos was in the
Philippines and Pagbilao was able to interview her, it is incredible
that the latter would not require Amelia Ramos to execute a
Written Consent to the adoption of her minor children. Neither
did the petitioner bother to present Amelia Ramos as witness in
support of the petition.
This case is not abandonment of the parent of her children, evidences
show that Amelia was ashamed that her in-laws were providing for
them after her husbands death. Her parents are also undergoing
medication, so they mortgaged their farm and she went to Italy to
work.
She also send financial support for her children, though small
compared to what her in-laws are giving.
SC: Amelia had not intended to abandon her children, or to
permanently sever their mother-child relationship. She was merely
impelled to leave the country by financial constraints. Yet, even while
abroad, she did not surrender or relinquish entirely her motherly
obligations of rearing the children to her now deceased mother-inlaw, for, as claimed by Elaine herself, she consulted her mother,
Amelia, for serious personal problems. Likewise, Amelia continues to
send financial support to the children, though in minimal amounts as
compared to what her affluent in-laws provide.
Elena et al., contend that the sale of the lot by their mother to the
spouses is null and void because it was made without judicial
authority and/or court approval.
The spouses, on the other hand, contend that the sale was valid:
o as the value of the property was less than P2,000,
o their right to rescind the contract which should have been
exercised four (4) years after reaching the age of majority,
has already prescribed.
RTC Ruling: Sale to the spouses is declared NULL and VOID.
CA Ruling: REVERSED, applying the ruling of SC in Ortaez vs. Dela
Cruz, O.G., Vol. 60, No. 24, pp. 3434, 3438-3439, that:
o "A father or mother acting as legal administrator of the
property of the child under parental authority cannot,
therefore, dispose of the child's property without judicial
authority if it is worth more than P2,000.00 notwithstanding
the bond that he has filed for the protection of the Child's
property. But when the value of such property is less than
P2,000.00, the permission of the court for its alienation or
disposition may be dispensed with. The father or mother, as
the case may be, is allowed by law to alienate or dispose of
the same feely, subject only to the restrictions imposed by
the scruples of conscience."
ISSUE: Whether or not judicial approval was necessary for the sale of the
minors' property by their mother.
HELD: YES. Judicial approval was necessary for the sale of the minors'
property by their mother.
RATIO: Art. 320 of the New Civil Code was already in force when
the assailed transaction occurred. (see page 2 of the original case,
lower right part for the exact provision)
Under the law, a parent, acting merely as the legal (as distinguished
from judicial) administrator of the property of his/her minor children,
does not have the power to dispose of, or alienate, the property of
said children without judicial approval.
The powers and duties of the widow as legal administrator of her
minor children's property as provided in Rule 84 of the Rules of Court
entitled, "General Powers and Duties of Executors and
Administrators" are only powers of possession and management. Her
power to sell, mortgage, encumber or otherwise dispose of