IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR BERTHA ANN RIVERA ROBERT H. CATHEY AND HELEN O. CATHEY, PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APP…

Cathey versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is the petition of the spouses Robert H. Cathey and Helen O. Cathey to adopt the minor Bertha Ann Rivera, brought against the Republic of the Philippines as oppositor. The spouses sought to adopt a child who had been left in their care three days after her birth, and the trial court refused them on two grounds: that the mother's testimony had not been secured, and that the husband, an American citizen, was disqualified as an alien. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to fix two rules a reviewee must carry: written consent, not the consenting parent's testimony, is what the law requires, and alienage by itself does not disqualify an adopter.

Procedural History

The spouses filed their petition for adoption before the Court of Juvenile and Domestic Relations of Manila, later amending it upon the court's orders. After the petitioners presented their evidence, without opposition from the Solicitor General, that court rendered a decision denying the petition. The petitioners appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising questions purely of law. The Solicitor General, on appeal, filed a brief praying that the adoption be granted.

Facts

On January 19, 1963, Bertha Ann Rivera was born to Violeta O. Rivera. Three days after the birth, the child was placed in the care and custody of the Cathey spouses. Robert Cathey is an American citizen who has resided in the Philippines since 1945; Helen Cathey is a Filipino citizen residing here since birth. The spouses had no children of their own. The mother gave her written consent to the adoption, and a copy of that consent was attached to the petition. The natural father was unknown.

When the mother refused to testify, the petitioners sought the help of the Chief of Police of Angeles, Pampanga. Patrolman Mariano Carbungco located her working as a night club hostess. She refused to reveal her residence and refused to testify, but she re-affirmed her written consent. The patrolman executed an affidavit attesting to these facts. Thereafter she could not be found.

The trial court denied the petition, holding that genuine efforts to present the mother had not been shown and that Robert Cathey, as an alien, was not qualified to adopt. The evidence on appeal showed that Robert Cathey holds an Immigrant Certificate of Residence, is legally married to Helen Olalia, serves as administrative officer of the United States Naval Construction office at Clark Air Base, and has personal properties in the Philippines.

Issues

• Whether or not the written consent of the mother attached to the petition satisfies the law, without her testimony in court.
• Whether or not the petitioners exerted genuine efforts to present the mother before the court.
• Whether or not Robert Cathey, an American citizen, is disqualified from adopting by reason of his alienage.

Applicable Provisions

Article 340 of the New Civil Code provides:

"(1) the person to be adopted, if fourteen years of age or over; (2) the parents, guardian or person in charge of the person to be adopted."

This fixes who must consent, and it requires consent, not testimony.

Section 3 of Rule 100 of the Old Rules of Court, now Section 3 of Rule 99, provides:

"SEC. 3. Consent to adoption. - There shall be filed with the petition a written consent to the adoption signed by the child, if over fourteen years of age and not incompetent, and by each of its known living parents who is not insane or hopelessly intemperate or has not abandoned such child, or if there are no such parents by the general guardian or guardian ad litem of the child, or if the child is in the custody of an orphan asylum, children's home, or benevolent society or person, by the proper officer or officers of such asylum, home, or society, or by such person; but if the child is illegitimate and has not been recognized, the consent of its father to the adoption shall not be required."

This is the procedural rule on consent, and it speaks only of a written consent filed with the petition.

Article 335 of the New Civil Code provides:

"ART. 335. The following cannot adopt: xx xxx xx xx "(4) Non-resident aliens; "(5) Resident aliens with whose government the Republic of the Philippines has broken diplomatic relations;"

This is the exclusive list of disqualifications, and alienage as such is not on it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the requirement as to consent has been met. Both the substantive and the procedural law require only the written consent attached to the petition; neither requires the testimony of the consenting parent before the court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioners did all they could and all that reasonably could have been expected. They sought police help, the mother was located, she refused to testify but re-affirmed her consent, and she then could not be found. The Court stressed that the primary consideration, the welfare of the child, should not be prejudiced by the mother's absence.

On the third issue, the Court held that not all aliens are disqualified. Quoting its earlier ruling, it said:

"the present Civil Code in force (Article 335) only disqualifies from being adopters aliens that are either (a) non-residents or (b) who are residents 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 under our laws."

Robert Cathey is a resident alien entitled to remain, and so he is qualified.

Doctrine

First, consent to adoption is satisfied by the written consent filed with the petition; the testimony of the consenting parent is not required by Article 340 of the New Civil Code or by Section 3 of Rule 99.

Second, under Article 335 of the New Civil Code, only non-resident aliens and resident aliens whose government has broken diplomatic relations with the Philippines are disqualified from adopting. Alienage alone does not disqualify.

Third, in every adoption the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, and it is not to be defeated by the absence of a consenting parent who cannot be produced despite reasonable efforts.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment appealed from and directed the court below to allow the adoption sought, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: alienage by itself alone does not disqualify a foreigner from adopting under our laws; only non-resident aliens and resident aliens from governments with which we have broken relations are barred. Examiners use this case to test the Article 335 disqualifications and the rule that written consent, not the parent's testimony, is what the law demands.