S/SGT. JOSEPH K. KATANCIK, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

Katancik versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is the special proceeding of Katancik versus Republic of the Philippines, an appeal brought by the Republic against a lower court decision that had allowed a foreign serviceman to adopt a Filipino minor. The petitioner, a staff sergeant of the United States Air Force stationed at Clark Field in Pampanga, sought to adopt the child Joseph Agullo. The case matters because it fixes, for purposes of Philippine adoption law, when a foreigner stationed in the country on military assignment is to be treated as a non-resident alien and therefore disqualified to adopt. It is a short, clean ruling on residence as a qualification for adoption, and it is the companion of the earlier Caber decision, which it follows.

Procedural History

The petition for adoption was first instituted in the Justice of the Peace Court of Clark Field, Pampanga, which granted the petition. The matter was then elevated to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, which likewise approved the grant and found the petitioner qualified to adopt the minor. From that decision of the Court of First Instance, the Republic interposed the present appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the petitioner, whose stay in the Philippines was merely temporary and conditioned on his military assignment, is a non-resident alien disqualified to adopt under Article 335 of the Civil Code.

Facts

Joseph J. Katancik is an American citizen and a staff sergeant of the United States Air Force assigned to Clark Field, Pampanga. He had been assigned to that air base since September 11, 1957, and during that time he was actually living in the province with his Filipina wife. He had three more years of service before final discharge, after which he expected to be employed as a civilian employee in the same air base under the Federal United States Civil Service. He manifested his intention to reside in the Philippines permanently.

The petitioner is a Catholic, with no legitimate, legitimated, or natural children, and he appeared to be physically, morally, and financially fit to adopt the child Joseph Agullo. His wife consented to the adoption.

The Republic opposed the adoption on a single ground: that the petitioner's stay in the Philippines was merely temporary, conditioned on his assignment with the Air Forces at Clark Field, so that he is a non-resident alien and therefore disqualified to adopt under Article 335 of the Civil Code.

Issues

• Whether or not a foreign serviceman stationed in the Philippines under military assignment, who intends to remain permanently after discharge, is a non-resident alien disqualified to adopt a minor under Article 335 of the Civil Code.
• Whether or not the lower court erred in approving the adoption in favor of the petitioner.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which the Republic invokes as the ground for disqualification, provides:

The following cannot adopt: (1) Those who have no capacity to give their consent; (2) Minors; (3) Guardians with respect to their wards; (4) Married persons, without the consent of their spouse; (5) Non-resident aliens; (6) Those who have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; (7) Those who have legitimate, legitimated or acknowledged natural children.

The case turns on the fifth disqualification, non-resident aliens, because the Republic contends that the petitioner's military assignment makes his residence in the Philippines temporary and therefore disqualifying.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner must be considered a non-resident alien and is therefore disqualified to adopt under Philippine laws. It relied on its recent ruling in the matter of the adoption of the minor Norma Lee Caber, in Caraballo versus Republic of the Philippines, decided in April 1962. There, as here, the petitioner for adoption was a staff sergeant of the United States Air Force at Clark Field, married, and without children; he too was due for discharge after several years of service and intended to stay in the Philippines permanently upon retirement from the United States forces. After a brief discussion on the subject of his residence, the Court had concluded that, because of his assignment as staff sergeant in the United States Air Force, Caraballo was a non-resident alien incapable of adopting a minor in this country.

In consonance with that ruling, the Court held that the petitioner Joseph J. Katancik must also be considered a non-resident alien and therefore disqualified to adopt. The Court did not weigh his moral, physical, or financial fitness, nor his manifested intention to reside permanently, because the statutory disqualification operates on the character of his residence as fixed by his military assignment.

On the second issue, it followed that the lower court erred in approving the adoption, and the decision appealed from was reversed.

Doctrine

A foreign serviceman stationed in the Philippines by reason of military assignment is a non-resident alien for purposes of adoption, even if he has lived in the country for some time, is married to a Filipina, and intends to settle here permanently after discharge. Under Article 335 of the Civil Code, non-resident aliens cannot adopt, and that disqualification is absolute regardless of the petitioner's fitness or good intentions. The controlling consideration is the temporary and conditional character of the stay, not the length of actual residence nor the declared intention to remain. A Bar answer should state the rule as the Court did: because of his assignment as a staff sergeant in the United States Air Force, the petitioner is a non-resident alien, incapable of adopting a minor in this country.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and denied the petition for adoption, with costs against the appellee.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a foreign serviceman assigned to a Philippine base remains a non-resident alien and cannot adopt, however long he has stayed and whatever his intention to remain. Examiners use this case to test the non-resident alien disqualification under Article 335 of the Civil Code, often paired with the Caber ruling on the same point.