REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SPOUSES JAMES ANTHONY HUGHES AND LENITA MABUNAY HUGHES, RESPONDENTS.

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
Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 60, to adopt Ma. Cecilia, Neil and
Mario, 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 Regional Trial Court rendered a decision
granting the petition. A Petition for
Review on Certiorari 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.

Hence, the present petition. The petitioner assigned a lone error on the part of the respondent
court, thus –

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE
PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF SPOUSES JAMES ANTHONY HUGHES AND LENITA MABUNAY HUGHES
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO ADOPT UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW.

It is clear that James Anthony is not qualified to adopt. Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as “The Family Code of the Philippines,”
is explicit.

“Art. 184. The
following persons may not adopt:

(1)  
The guardian with respect to the ward prior to the approval of
the final accounts rendered upon the termination of their guardianship
relation;

(2)  
Any person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude;

(3)  
An alien, except:

(a)  
A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by
consanguinity;

(b)  
One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his of her
Filipino spouse; or

(c)  
One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt
jointly with his or her spouse a relative by consanguinity of the latter.

Aliens not included in the foregoing exceptions may adopt Filipino
children in accordance with the rules on inter-country adoption as may be provided by law.”

While James Anthony unquestionably is not permitted to adopt
under any of the exceptional cases enumerated in paragraph (3) of the
aforequoted article, Lenita, however, can qualify pursuant to paragraph
(3)(a). The problem in her case lies,
instead, with Article 185 of Executive Order No. 209, 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.

The old law on adoption, Presidential Decree No. 603 (The Child
and Youth Welfare Code), exactly adopted that found in then Article 336 of the
Civil Code. Article 29, Section B, Chapter I, Title II, of the said decree
provided:

“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.”

Observe that the law then in force used
the word “may” under which regime, a joint adoption by the spouses
was apparently not made obligatory. The
provision was later amended, however, by Executive Order No. 91, dated 17
December 1986, of President Corazon C. Aquino. The new Article 29 expressed, thus –

“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 a joint adoption by the spouses
except in only two instances –

(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.

It is in the foregoing cases when Article
186 of the Code, on the subject of parental authority, can aptly find
governance.

“Article 186. In case
husband and wife jointly adopt or one spouse adopts the legitimate child of the
other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses in accordance
with this Code.” –

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. When,
however, the law is clear and no other choice is given,^[1] we
must obey its full mandate.

Even then, we find it difficult to conclude this opinion without
having to call the attention of the appropriate agencies concerned to the
urgency of addressing the issue
on inter-country adoption, a matter
that evidently is likewise espoused by the Family Code (Article 184, last
paragraph, Family Code).

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the
respondent court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
At least until such time as the “rules on inter?country
adoption” are provided for by law pursuant to Article 184 of the Family Code.