229 Republic V CA and Hughes Digest

G.R. No.
100835, October 26, 1993
REPUBLIC vs. CA and HUGHES
FACTS:
James Anthony Hughes, a natural born citizen of the United States of America, married Lenita
Mabunay Hughes, a Filipino Citizen, who herself was later naturalized as a citizen of that
country. On 29 June 1990, the spouses jointly filed a petition with the RTC of Angeles City to
adopt Ma. Cecilia, Neil and Maria, all surnamed Mabunay, minor niece and nephews of Lenita,
who had been living with the couple even prior to the filing of the petition. The minors, as well as
their parents, gave consent to the adoption. On 29 November 1990, the RTC rendered a
decision granting the petition. A petition for Review onCertiorari was filed with this Court,
assailing the trial court's decision. This Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals which, on
09 July 1991, affirmed the trial court's decision.
ISSUE: W/N the spouses Anthony and Lenita Hughes are qualified to adopt the minor niece and
nephews of Lenita under Philippine law
HELD:
No, it is clear that James Anthony Hughes is not qualified to adopt under Article 184 of the
Family Code because he does not fall under any of the following exceptions enumerated in
paragraph (3): (a) A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity; (b)
One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his or her Filipino spouse; or (c) One who is
married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his or her Filipino spouse a relative
by consanguinity of the latter. While James Anthony unquestionably is not permitted to adopt,
Lenita, however, can qualify pursuant to paragraph (3)(a). The problem in her case lies, instead,
with Article 185 of the Code, expressing as follows:
Art. 185. Husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in the following cases:
(1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or
(2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other.
Lenita may not thus adopt alone since Article 185 requires a joint adoption by the
husband and the wife, a condition that must be read along together with Article 184.
Executive Order No. 91, dated 17 December 1986, of President Corazon C. Aquino amended
Article 29 of PD 603 and is expressed as follows —
Art. 29. Husband and wife may jointly adopt. In such case, parental authority
shall be exercised as if the child were their own by nature.
If one of the spouses is an alien, both husband and wife shall jointly adopt.
Otherwise, the adoption shall not be allowed.
As amended by Executive Order 91, Presidential Decree No. 603, had thus made it mandatory
for both the spouses to jointly adopt when one of them was an alien. The law was silent when
both spouses were of the same nationality.
The Family Code has resolved any possible uncertainty. Article 185 thereof now expresses the
necessity for joint adoption by the spouses except in only two instances —
(1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own legitimate child; or
(2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other.
The respondent court, in affirming the grant of adoption by the lower court, has theorized that
James Anthony should merely be considered a "nominal or formal party" in the proceedings.
This view of the appellate court cannot be sustained. Adoption creates a status that is
closely assimilated to legitimate paternity and filiation with corresponding rights and
duties that necessarily flow from adoption, such as, but not necessarily confined to, the
exercise of parental authority, use of surname of the adopter by the adopted, as well as
support and successional rights. These are matters that obviously cannot be considered
inconsequential to the parties.
We are not unmindful of the possible benefits, particularly in this instance, that an adoption can
bring not so much for the prospective adopting parents as for the adopted children themselves.
We also realize that in proceedings of this nature, paramount consideration is given to the
physical, moral, social and intellectual welfare of the adopted for whom the law on adoption
has in the first place been designed.

229 Republic V CA and Hughes Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

229 Republic V CA and Hughes Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

229 Republic V CA and Hughes Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

100835, October 26, 1993

REPUBLIC vs. CA and HUGHES

You might also like