IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR ROSSANA E. CRUZ ROSALINA E. CRUZ, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELANT.

Cruz versus Republic

The Case

This is an appeal by the Republic of the Philippines from a decree of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City granting a petition for adoption. The petitioner, Rosalina E. Cruz, sought to adopt her niece, and the trial court granted the petition. The Republic opposed on the ground that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction because the child was named in the petition and in the published order of hearing by her baptismal name rather than by her name as recorded in the civil register. The case matters because it fixes a rule every adoption practitioner must know: an adoption proceeding is a proceeding in rem, jurisdiction is acquired through publication, and publication that does not carry the child's true and officially recorded name is a failure of service that leaves the court without jurisdiction over the case.

Procedural History

Rosalina E. Cruz filed a petition to adopt a minor before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City. The court, satisfied with the sufficiency of the petition and noting the written consent of the child's natural parents, Lucilo Bucoy and Ana E. Bucoy, issued an order on 11 January 1962 setting the petition for hearing and directing publication of the order once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Zamboanga Times. After hearing, the trial court rendered a decree granting the adoption. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, appealed to the Supreme Court on the sole issue of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court reversed the decree.

Facts

Rosalina E. Cruz was thirty nine years old, childless, married to Francisco de la Cruz, and a resident of Zamboanga. Her husband gave his consent to the adoption in an affidavit attached to the petition and also testified to it in court. The child sought to be adopted was born on 26 December 1959 and was recorded in the local civil registrar's office as Rossana Esperat Bucoy. The petitioner had reared and cared for the child since birth and had developed a strong maternal love for her.

The child was baptized on 19 September 1960 as Rossana E. Cruz, already bearing the surname of the would-be adopting parent. In the petition for adoption, and in the order of hearing as published in the newspaper, the child was named Rossana E. Cruz, her baptismal name, instead of Rossana E. Bucoy, her name in the record of birth.

The child's natural parents consented in writing and testified in court to their consent. Their main reason was that the petitioner, who is the sister of Mrs. Bucoy, was childless, while Mrs. Bucoy had ten children and her husband earned little. The Republic opposed the petition, contending that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction because of the substantial defect in the petition and in the published order of hearing.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition for adoption despite the use, in the petition and in the published order of hearing, of the child's baptismal name instead of her name as recorded in the civil register.
• Whether or not the defect in the name published amounts to a failure of service by publication that deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 99, then Section 4 of former Rule 100, governs notice in adoption proceedings and provides:

Section 4 of Rule 99. Notice. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall fix a time and place for the hearing thereof, and shall cause notice of such time and place to be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province where the court is situated, and shall also cause a copy of such notice to be served upon the parents or guardian of the minor, if known.

This provision bears on the case because publication is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding, and the notice must therefore identify the child by the true name by which persons concerned can recognize the proceeding.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General. The name of a person as recorded in the civil register, and not his baptismal name, is, for legal purposes, his real name, because baptismal names have never been legally recognized and the practice of using them is not sanctioned by law. It follows that using the baptismal name of the child to be adopted, instead of the name in the civil register, would countenance or permit that which has always been frowned upon.

On the second issue, the Court held that a proceeding in adoption is a proceeding in rem, in which notice is made through publication to protect the interests of all persons concerned. Those interests will not be protected if the notice by publication does not carry the true name of the child to be adopted, because the persons to be served by the notice have the right to expect the use of the child's officially recorded name. The defect in this case amounts to a failure of service by publication, and the trial court acquired no jurisdiction over the case.

Doctrine

First, the name of a person as recorded in the civil register, and not the baptismal name, is for legal purposes his real name. Second, an adoption proceeding is a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction is acquired through notice by publication under Section 4 of Rule 99. Third, publication that does not carry the true and officially recorded name of the child to be adopted is a failure of service by publication, and the court acquires no jurisdiction over the case. A bar answer should tie these rules together: because the proceeding is in rem and notice runs to the whole world, the published name must be the registered name, and any variance is jurisdictional, not a mere formal defect.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the appealed decree and dismissed the petition for adoption, without prejudice to reinstituting the proceedings in conformity with law, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an adoption is a proceeding in rem, and publication using the baptismal name instead of the civil register name is a failure of service that deprives the court of jurisdiction. Examiners use this case to test the jurisdictional requisites of adoption and the rule that the civil register name, not the baptismal name, is the legal name of a person.