WESTWICK♥

1.) No. L-24750. May 16, 1980

DOROTEO BANAWA, JULIANA MENDOZA, CASIANO AMPONIN and
GLICERIA ABRENICA, petitioners, vs. PRIMITIVA MIRANO, GREGORIA
MIRANO, JUANA MIRANO and MARCIANO MIRANO, respondents.

Topic: Reserva: Reversion Adoptiva

Doctrine: The rule on reversion adoptiva prescribed in Sec. 5, Rule 100 of the
Old Rules of Court refers only to the property received by a judicially adopted
child.

Facts:
1. Spouses Banawa and Mendoza took their niece Maria Mirano with them
– because they were childless. Through a general merchandise, they
were able to generate income to acquire parcel of lands.
2. Maria Mirano died & was survived by her sister Primitiva and 3 children
of her brother, Martin.
3. Two parcels of land are in dispute in this case: Iba property and a parcel
of sugar land – Carsuche property.
4. Petitioners assert that the sale of the Carsuche property was made in a
public instrument in favor of Maria Mirano, thus they are entitled to it
under the rules of reversion adoptive.
- The defendants assert that it was made in private writing by
Biscocho who is the original owner of the property.
5. Maria Mirano was declared the owner of the two parcels of land.

Issue: Whether petitioner spouses are entitled to the land in question by

virtue of reversion adoptive. -NO 


Held:
Sec. 5 of Rule 100 of the Old Rules of Court provides that "in case of death of
the child, his parents and relatives by nature, and not by adoption, shall be his
legal heirs, except as to property received or inherited by the adopted child
from either of his parents by adoption, which shall become property of the latter
or their legitime relatives who shall participate in the order established by the
Civil Code for intestate estates"

The submission of the petitioners spouses is that extrajudicial adoption is

within the contemplation and spirit of rule of reversion adoptiva. However, the
rule involved specifically provides for the case of the judicially adopted
child. It is an elementary rule of construction that when the language of the
law is clear unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says.