IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE MINOR CHARLES JOSEPH BLANCAFLOR WEEKS. UGGI LINDAMAND THERKELSEN AND ERLINDA G. BLANCAFLOR, PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE …

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

This appeal was taken against a decision of the Manila’ Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court, in its special proceedings No. D-00007, denying appellants’
application for adoption of the minor Charles Joseph Blancaflor Weeks. The
factual background of the case is stated in the decision appealed from to be as
follows:

“In this adoption proceeding, the petitioners are husband and wife who were
married on June 2, 1962, or hardy a year ago. The minor sought to be adopted,
born on February 16, 1960, is the natural child of petitioner’s wife. His father
was Charles Joseph Weeks, who abandoned mother and child after the latter’s
birth. He is said to have gone back to the United States.

Except for the legal impediment hereinafter to be mentioned,, the facts
before the Court may warrant the approval of the, adoption sought herein.
Petitioner husband is a Danish subject, who has been granted permanent residence
in the Philippines’ (Exhs. “D and “E”). A former employee of Scandinavian
Airlines System, he is now Manager of M. Y. Travel International; Hongkong Ltd.,
with a monthly salary of P1,2W)AW, plus allowances. It does not appear that
either petitioner has been convicted of a dime involving moral turpitude. On the
other hand, the minor bought to be adopted has been living with them ever since
the carriage of petitioners. Petitioner husband has treated the minor as his
son, and the latter calls him “Daddy”. Although the possibility exists that
petitioners may yet have their own children, the adoption at this time, before
any such children is begotten, may strengthen, rather than disrupt, future
domestic relations.”

The court a quo denied the adoption sought, saying:

‘In Sp. Proc. No. D-00011, adoption of Benigno Lim, this court has had
occasion to rule that a Filipino cannot adopt an alien (Chinese) minor about 19
years old. The adoption would not’ of Philippine citizenship on the Chinese, but
could definitely legalize his stay in this country. It was also stated that
conversely, an alien cannot adopt a Filipino unless the adoption would make the
Filipino minor a citizen of the alien’s country. As petitioner husband in this
case is a Danish subject, it has to be held that he cannot legally adopt the
minor Charles Joseph Blancaflor Weeks, whose citizenship is of this country,
following that of his natural mother.”

If we understand the decision correctly, the adoption was denied solely
because the same would not result in the loss of the minor’s Filipino
citizenship and the acquisition by him of the citizenship of his adopter.
Unfortunately, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court did not expound the
reasons for its opinion; but it is clear that, if pursued to its logical
consequences, the judgment appealed from would operate to impose a further
prerequisite on adoptions by aliens beyond those required by law. As pointed out
by the Solicitor General in his brief, the present Civil Code in force (Article
335) only disqualifies from being adopters those aliens that are either (a)
non-resident or (b) who are resident 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 a person
under our law. Petitioners admittedly do not fall in either class.

The criterion adopted by the Court a quo would demand as a condition
for the approval of the adoption that the process should result in the
acquisition, by the person adopted, of the alien citizenship of the adopting
parent. This finds no support in the law, for, as observed by this Court in
Clung Leng vs. Galang, G. R. No. L-11931, promulgated on 27 October 1958, the
citizenship of the adopter is a matter political, and not civil, in nature, and
the ways in which it should be conferred lay outside the ambit of the Civil
Code. It is not within the province of our civil law to determine how or when
citizenship in a foreign state is to be acquired. The disapproval of an adoption
of an alien child in order to forestall circumvention of our exclusion laws does
not warrant denial of the adoption of a Filipino minor by qualified alien
adopting parents, since it is not shown that our public policy would be thereby
subverted.

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the
court a quo is directed to allow the adoption sought. Without costs.

Bengzon, C, J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon,
Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P. and Zaldivar, JJ. concur.