STATUS OF CHILDREN

A. Legitimacy and Illegitimacy

1. What are the conflicts rules in determining legitimacy of children?

(a) If the parents are of the same nationality, their common personal
law, whether their national law or the law of their domicile, will be
applied.

If the parents are of different nationalities, the personal law of the

father governs

(b) In the Philippines, since we follow the nationality theory (Art. 15,
NCC), the common national law of the parents applies, and, if they
have different nationalities, the national law of the father governs.

2. Who are legitimate and illegitimate children under Philippine internal law?

Art. 164 FC defines legitimate children as “children conceived or born

during the marriage of the parents,” while illegitimate children are
defined by Art. 165 FC as “children conceived and born outside a valid
marriage x x x unless otherwise provided in this Code.”

The second par. of Art. 164, however, includes a special kind of

legitimate children – children conceived as a result of the artificial
insemination of the wife with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor
or both, provided the children were born under the conditions
prescribed in said Article.

As for the exceptions to Art. 165 defining illegitimate children, the

exceptions referred to are the children born of void marriages under
Art. 36 (psychological incapacity) and under Art. 53 (those born of the first
marriage of the parties before said first marriage had been annulled or
declared void, and who marry a second time without delivering the
presumptive legitime of the children of their first marriage).

3. What are the rights of legitimate and legitimated children under

Philippine law?

They are defined under Art. 174 of FC, to wit:

(1) To bear the surname of the father and the mother, in conformity
with the provisions of the CC on surnames;
(2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in
proper cases, their brothers and sisters, in conformity with the
provisions of this Code on support; and
 (3) To be entitled to the legitime and other successional rights granted
to them by the CC.

4. What are the rights of illegitimate children under Philippine law?

They are defined under Art. 176, FC, to wit:

(1) To use the surname of the mother;
(2) To be under the parental authority of the mother;
(3) To support in conformity with this Code;
(4) To the legitime, which is one-half of the legitime of a legitimate
child.

Remember that under RA 9225, illegitimate children may now use the
surname of the father “if their affiliation has been expressly recognized
by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register or
when an admission in a public document or private handwritten
instrument is made by the father” during the latter’s lifetime.

5. What law governs the rights and duties between parent and child?

(a) if the child is legitimate as determined by the above rules, either the
common personal law of the parents, or the personal law of the father
if the parents are of different nationalities, governs;

(b) if the child is illegitimate as determined by the above rules, the

personal law of the mother is decisive, unless the child is subsequently
recognized by the father, in which case the rules on legitimate
children will be applied;

(c) In the Philippines, again since we follow the nationality theory, the
law of the mother governs if the child is illegitimate, unless the child is
again recognized by the father, in which case the personal law of the
father (whether it is the same as the mother) applies.

6. What is meant by the doctrine of immutability of status?

This doctrines means that the status of a child (whether legitimate or

illegitimate) is not affected by a subsequent change of nationality of
the parents. But the rights and duties of parent and child, or child and
parent, would, after the parents’ change of nationality, be governed by
the new national law of the parents.

B. Legitimation

1. What are the conflicts rules on legitimation of children?

“Legitimation” is a process whereby children who in fact were not born in
lawful wedlock and should, thus, be ordinarily considered illegitimate
children are, by fiction of law and upon compliance with certain legal
requirements, regarded by law as “legitimate,” it being supposed that they
were born after their parents had already been validly married.

In Conflict of Laws, the requisites of legitimation are generally considered

those prescribed by the national law of the parents, and if the latter have
different national laws, the national law of the father. In countries
following the domiciliary theory, however, the personal law being the
law of the domicile, the law of the domicile of the parents, or, in
proper cases, the law of the domicile of the father should govern.

2. What is the internal law of the Philippines on legitimation of children?

This is found in Arts. 177 to 182 of the FC.

Under Art. 177, the following requisites must concur in order that a child
may be legitimated:
(a) the child was conceived and born outside lawful wedlock;
(b) the parents, at the time of the child’s conception, were not
disqualified by any impediment to marry each other.

3. If the personal law of the parents, or of the father in proper cases,

changes, is the legitimation of the child affected?

No, because the legitimation creates a permanent status of the child, so

this status is immutable. However, the rights and duties of parents and
legitimated children may be modified by a change of the personal law of
the parents or of the father, as the case may be.

The immutability of the status of a legitimated child is very clear under Art.
180, FC which provides that “the effects of legitimation shall retroact
to the time of the child’s birth.” Also, Art. 178 provides that “the
annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation.”

4. What are the rights of legitimated children under Philippine law?

Same rights as legitimate children (Art. 179, FC).

C. Adoption

1. What are the sources of the Philippine law on adoption?

(a) Before the FC which took effect on August 3, 1988, our law on adoption
was PD 603 (the Child and Youth Welfare Code), which expressly repealed
all the provisions of the NCC on adoption;

(b) PD 603 was later amended by EO 91, series 1986 regarding non-
resident aliens who were allowed to adopt under PD 603.

(c) Subsequently, all the provisions of PD 603 and EO 91 on substantive

matters were repealed by Title VII of the FC. Certain procedural
provisions of PD 603 on adoption (Arts. 32 to 38) were no, however,
repealed by the FC.

Under the FC, aliens were not allowed to adopt in the Philippines anymore
except those referred to in Art. 184(3) thereof, and non-resident aliens were
allowed to adopt Filipino children only under the law on Inter-Country
Adoption (RA 8043) which was signed on June 7, 1995. Under this law, the
adoption proceedings are to be held in the home country of the adopters.

(d) Still lawter, on February 25, 1998, RA 8552 was signed (“Domestic
Adoption Act of 1998), amending many provisions of the FC on domestic
adoption.

2. State the concept and rationale of adoption.

(a) The old definition of adoption in the Partidas is that it is ‘the act
whereby one person is received as the offspring of another although
he is not such by nature.’

This definition was based on the theory that adoption is mainly for the
benefit of the adopter, so that those who have no children or have lost
them, may have the solace and joys of parenthood, and that the void which
exists in childless homes may be filled (Ynigo v. Republic, 95 Phil. 244).

(b) The rationale of adoption has, however, changed, and it is now

considered more for the benefit of the child than for the adopter, and
pursuant to this modern trend, it has been held that adoption does not
merely establish a relationship of paternity and filiation but is also an act
which endows the child with legitimate status (Prasnick v. Republic, 98
Phil. 665)

“Adoption is thus given a social and moral purpose; that is, to extend to the
orphan or to the child of the indigent, the incapacitated or the sick, the
protection of society in the person of the adopter” (Dr. Tolentino).

3. What law determines whether the relationship of adoption has been

created or not?
(a) the child’s personal law, to protect his well-being;
(b) If the child does not reside in the country of his citizenship, the
personal law of the adopter will govern, or the personal law of the
adopter and that of the child will be applied concurrently.

4. What law determines the legal effects of the adoption?

The legal effects of the adoption are determined by the same law that
created the relationship of adoption. The legal effects that flow from
the adoption are:

(a) the successional rights of the adopted child;

(b) the parental authority of the adopter over the adopted child;
(c) the use by the adopted child of the surname of the adopter.

5. An important problem in adoption in the Philippines is whether aliens

can adopt in our country. What is Philippine law on the matter?

(a) As discussed in Question No. 1 hereof, while the NCC did not allow non-
resident aliens to adopt, PD 603 liberalized the NCC provisions on adoption
and allowed even non-resident aliens to come to the Philippines and
adopt our children here.

(b) The FC, however, became strict in adoption of aliens in the Philippines
because of reports received by the Committee that drafted the Code x x x
that some Filipino children adopted by aliens and brought by the latter to
their home countries suffered cultural and psychological shock and could not
adjust to their new lives in the foreign countries of their foreign adopters.
Also, information was received that old alien pedophiles, after having been
allowed to adopt Filipino children in the Philippines, would, after bringing said
children to their home countries, simply abandon these children after they
had satisfied their sexual desires on them. There were even alleged cases of
Filipino children who, after having been adopted by foreigners, were killed
for organ transplant in the foreign homes of their adopters. Hence, the
Committee believed that by limiting adoption of Filipino children by aliens to
former Filipino citizens (and/or their spouse) related by blood to the adopted
children, the latter would be given some measure of protection by the
adopters who are their relatives by consanguinity.

(c) RA 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998) again allows aliens (who are
not former Filipino citizens) to adopt in our country, provided –
(1) they have the same qualifications as those required of Filipino
citizens;
(2) their countries have diplomatic relations with our country;
 (3) they have been living in the Philippines for at least 3 years prior to
the filing of the petition for adoption, and maintain such residence until
the adoption decree is entered;
(4) they have been certified by their diplomatic or consular offices or
by any appropriate government agency that they have the legal
capacity to adopt in their own countries; and
(5) their government allows the adopted child to enter their country as
their adopted child.

(d) As for the following aliens:

(1) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the 4 th
degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
(2) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate son or daughter of
his/her Filipino spouse; or
(3) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt
jointly with his/her spouse a relative within the 4th degree of
consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse; the same Sec. 7(b), RA
8552 provides that they need not comply with the residency in the
Philippines required of real aliens and they also need not submit
a certification that they have the capacity to adopt from the
diplomatic or consular office of their country in the Philippines
or any other government agency.

Note, however, that the special kinds of aliens enumerated above by RA

8552 are required to be related to the child to be adopted within the 4th
degree of consanguinity or affinity. Art. 184 of FC which the above provision
of RA 8552 amends did not limit the degree of consanguinity between the
adopter and adopted child. On the other hand, Sec. 7(b) of RA 8552 includes
children related within the 4th degree of affinity to the adopting parent, which
relationship of affinity was not included in Art. 184 of FC.

This author (Sempio-Dy) cannot understand, though, why RA 8552 in the

above provision limits the degree of relationship by consanguinity of the
adopter and the adopted child only to the 4 th degree. This means that a
former Filipino would not be able to adopt the child of his/her first cousin (5 th
degree) or his/her second cousin (6 th degree). Since the important
consideration here is the love and protection that a relative by blood, who is
now an alien, can give to the child once the latter is brought to the adopter’s
foreign home, it is immaterial how close they are related by blood.

6. The cases of Republic v. CA and Hughs, 227 SCRA 401 , and Republic v.
Judge Toledano, G.R. No. 94147, June 6, 1994 , decided by the SC, denied the
joint petitions for adoption filed under the FC by former Filipino wives, now
American citizens, and their American husband, because what the FC only
allowed was joint adoption by Filipino citizens and their aliens
spouses. Are these decisions still good under RA 8552?
No more if the aliens husbands of former Filipino wives can comply with the
requirements for alien adopters under Sec. 7(b), RA 8552.

But, RA 8552 still requires that husband and wife must jointly adopt,
which joint adoption was also required by the FC, except when one spouse
seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate child, or when one spouse seeks to
adopt the legitimate child of the other spouse (Art. 185, FC). RA 8552
adds that in cases where the spouses are legally separated x x x the
husband or the wife can adopt alone, and the consent of the other spouse
to an adoption filed by one spouse is no longer necessary.

7. What are the legal effects of adoption under Philippine law?

RA 8552 enumerates the legal effects of adoption as follows:

(1) All legal ties between the biological parent/s and the adopted child
are severed and the same shall be vested in the adopter/s, except in
cases where the biological parent is the spouse of the adopter. In other
words, parental authority over the adopted child is transferred to the
adopter;

(2) The adopted child shall be considered for all intents and purposes to
be the legitimate child of the adopter/s, and as such is entitled to all the
rights and obligations provided by law to legitimate children;

(3) In legal and intestate succession, the adopter/s and the adopted child
shall have reciprocal rights of succession without distinction from
legitimate filiation. Testamentary succession will, however, apply if the
adopted child and the adopter/s had left a will.

8. There are still other important points to remember regarding the nature
of adoption in the Philippines; namely:

(1) Adoption proceedings in our country are always judicial and in rem,
i.e. publication is required as constructive notice of the petition for
adoption to the whole world, since adoption creates status;

(2) Since there can be no valid adoption without a court decree granting the
same, a mere agreement of adoption between the adoptions and the
[biological] parents of the child is not a valid adoption (Santos-Ynigo v.
Republic), nor the fact that the child had been adopted de facto (ampon) by
the alleged adopting parents (Lazatin v. Judge Campos);

(3) Neither is the mere registration of the child in the civil registry as the
child of the adopter a valid adoption. This even amounts to the crime of
simulation of birth punishable by prision mayor in the medium period, and a
fine not exceeding P50,000.00;

(4) The capacity and right of the adopter to file a petition for adoption, are
governed by the law in force at the time the petition is filed, and
cannot be impaired by a new law disqualifying him/her for adoption
(Republic v. CA and Bobiles; Republic v. Miller).

9. Should we in the Philippines recognize a foreign decree of adoption?

While there is no provision of law nor jurisprudence expressly requiring the

Philippines to recognize a foreign decree of adoption, it is believed that
under Sec. 48, Rule 39, ROC, we can recognize such foreign decree of
adoption provided the foreign court had jurisdiction to render said
decree; and that there was no want of notice, collusion, extrinsic
fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact leading to the foreign decree
of adoption.

This is particularly true if both the adopter and the adopted child are
nationals or domiciliaries of the forum that decreed the adoption.

10. Does adoption confer on the adopted child the citizenship of the
adopter?

No. Adoption does not confer on the adopted child the citizenship of
the adopter. Adoption 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 (Uggi Lindamand Therkelsen v. Republic; Ching Leng v. Galang).

CASES ON ADOPTION

Marcaida v. Aglubat, G.R. No. L-24006, November 25, 1967

En Banc, Justice Sanchez

DOCTRINES: Private international law offers no obstacle to

recognition of foreign adoption. This rests on the principle that the
status of adoption, created by the law of a State having jurisdiction
to create it, will be given the same effect in another state as is
given by the latter state to the status of adoption when created by
its own law. It is quite obvious then that the status of adoption,
once created under the proper foreign law, will be recognized in this
country, except where public policy or the interests of its
inhabitants forbid its enforcement and demand the substitution of
the lex fori. Indeed, implicit in Art. 15, CC, is that the exercise of
incidents to foreign adoption “remains subject to local law.”
We hold that an adoption created under the law of a foreign country
is entitled registration in the corresponding civil register of the
Philippines. It is to be understood, however, that the effects of such
adoption shall be governed by the laws of this country.

FACTS: Maria Garner Garreau commenced a proceedings for adoption before

the Court of First Instance of Madrid, Spain to adopt herein petitioner Josefina
Juana de Dios Ramirez Marcaida. Later, the spanish court granted the same
and gave the necessary judicial authority for the same to execute the
corresponding adoption document by virtue of Spanish Law.

Thereafter, a notarial document of adoption, which embodies the Spanish

court’s order of adoption, was executed before a Notary Public in Madrid.
This document was known as “escritura de adoption,” and was authenticated
by Emilio Martinez, the Philippine Vice Consul in Madrid who issued a
certificate of authentication.

Thereafter, said escritura was filed by petitioner before the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar of Manila for registration. However, the respondent
Leoncio Aglubat, the deputy local civil registrar of Manila refused registration
on the ground that under Philippine law, adoption can only be had through
judicial proceeding. Hence, the escritura cannot be registered because a
notarial adoption is not a judicial proceeding.

Hence, petitioner went to the CFI-Manila on mandamus. However, the lower

court dismissed the same. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether the escritura de adopcion, as authenticated by the Philippine

Vice Consul in Madrid, Spain, registrible in the Philippines.

HELD: The SC ruled in the affirmative. It ratiocinated in this wise:

“We are not persuaded to adopt the Government's theory. We are at a loss
to understand how it could be concluded that the structure of the law did not
authorize registration of foreign adoptions. We perceive that Article 409 and
Section 10 aforesaid were incorporated into the statute books merely to give
effect to our law which required judicial proceedings for adoption. Limitation
of registration of adoptions to those granted by Philippine courts is a
misconception which a broader view allows us now to correct. For, if
registration is to be narrowed down to local adoptions, it is the function of
Congress, not of this Court, to spell out such limitation. We cannot carve out
a prohibition where the law does not so state. Excessive rigidity serves no
purpose. And, by Articles 407 and 408 of our Civil Code, the disputed
document of adoption is registrable.
No suggestion there is in the record that prejudice to State and adoptee, or
any other person for that matter, would ensue from the adoption here
involved. The validity thereof is not under attack. At any rate, whatever may
be the effect of adoption, the rights of the State and adoptee and other
persons interested are fully safeguarded by Article 15 of our Civil Code
which, in terms explicit, provides that: "Laws relating to family rights and
duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding
upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad."

Private international law offers no obstacle to recognition of foreign adoption.

This rests on the principle that the status of adoption, created by the law of a
State having jurisdiction to create it, will be given the same effect in another
state as is given by the latter state to the status of adoption when created by
its own law. It is quite obvious then that the status of adoption, once created
under the proper foreign law, will be recognized in this country, except
where public policy or the interests of its inhabitants forbid its enforcement
and demand the substitution of the lex fori. Indeed, implicit in Article 15 of
our Civil Code just quoted, is that the exercise of incidents to foreign
adoption "remains subject to local law."

It is high time for this Court to formulate a rule on the registration of foreign
adoptions. We hold that an adoption created under the law of a foreign
country is entitled to registration in the corresponding civil register of the
Philippines. It is to be understood, however, that the effects of such adoption
shall be governed by the laws of this country.”

Conformably to the foregoing, the lower court's decision of February 28,

1964 dismissing the mandamus petition appealed from, is hereby reversed;
and the Local Civil Registrar of Manila is hereby directed to register the deed
of adoption (Escritura de Adopcion) by Maria Garnier Garreau in favor of
petitioner Josefina de Dios Ramirez Marcaida.

Republic v. Spouses Miller, G.R. No. 125932, April 21, 1999

First Division, Justice Pardo

DOCTRINES: An alien who is qualified to adopt under the Child and

Youth Welfare Code (PD 603), which was in force at the time of the
filing of the petition, acquired a vested right which could not be
affected by the subsequent enactment of a new law disqualifying
him.

Rationale of adoption statutes. – Adoption statutes, being humane and

salutary, hold the interests and welfare of the child to be of paramount
consideration. They are designed to provide homes, parental care and
education for unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give them the
protection of society and family in the person of the adopter, as well as
childless couples or persons to experience the joy of parenthood and give
them legally a child in the person of the adopted for the manifestation of
their natural parent instincts. Every reasonable intendment should be
sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate objective of
the law.

FACTS: On August 3, 1988 the Family Code of the Philippines took effect,
which, among others, under its Art. 184 prohibits aliens to adopt.

However, prior to the Family Code, the law on adoption in force was PD 603
or the Child and Youth Welfare Code which allows aliens to adopt.

With this background, the controversy arose.

Herein private respondents Claude and Jumrus Miller (Spouses Miller) are
American citizens who have been living in the Philippines since 1985.

Later, in July 29, 1988, the spouses Miller filed with the RTC a verified
petition to adopt the minor Michael Magno Madayag.

Later, the RTC granted the petition for adoption.

However, the petitioner Republic, through the OSG interposed an appeal to

the CA, which the appellate court certified the same to the SC. Hence, this
petition.

The petitioner Republic raised the issue that –

ISSUE: Whether private respondents spouses Miller, as aliens, have the right
to adopt the minor Michael despite prohibition under the Family Code which
took effect after the petition for adoption was filed.

HELD: The SC ruled in the affirmative. It ratiocinated in this wise:

“The issue raised is whether the court may allow aliens to adopt a Filipino
child despite the prohibition under the Family Code, effective on August 3,
1988 when the petition for adoption was filed on July 29, 1988, under the
provision of the Child and Youth Welfare Code which allowed aliens to adopt.

The issue is not new. This Court has ruled that an alien qualified to adopt
under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, which was in force at the time of
the filing of the petition, acquired a vested right which could not be affected
by the subsequent enactment of a new law disqualifying him.

Consequently, the enactment of the Family Code, effective August 3, 1988,

will not impair the right of respondents who are aliens to adopt a Filipino
child because the right has become vested at the time of filing of the petition
for adoption and shall be governed by the law then in force. "A vested right
is one whose existence, effectivity and extent does not depend upon events
foreign to the will of the holder. The term expresses the concept of present
fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice should be protected
against arbitrary State action, or an innately just and imperative right which
enlightened free society, sensitive to inherent and irrefragable individual
rights, cannot deny." Vested rights include not only legal or equitable title to
the enforcement of a demand, but also an exemption from new obligations
created after the right has vested.

As long as the petition for adoption was sufficient in form and substance in
accordance with the law in governance at the time it was filed, the court
acquires jurisdiction and retains it until it fully disposes of the case. To
repeat, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at
the time of the commencement of the action. Such jurisdiction of a court,
whether in criminal or civil cases, once it attaches cannot be ousted by a
subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.

Therefore, an alien who filed a petition for adoption before the effective of
the Family Code, although denied the right to adopt under Art. 184 of said
Code, may continue with his petition under the law prevailing before the
Family Code.

Adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the interests and welfare
of the child to be of paramount consideration. They are designed to provide
homes, parental care and education for unfortunate, needy or orphaned
children and give them the protection of society and family in the person of
the adopter, as well as childless couples or persons to experience the joy of
parenthood and give them legally a child in the person of the adopted for the
manifestation of their natural parent instincts. Every reasonable intendment
should be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate
objective of the law.”

WHEREFORE, we hereby AFFIRM the appealed decision of the Regional Trial

Court, Branch 59, Angeles City, in SP. Proc. No. 3562.

Spouses Park v. Hon. Liwanag, G.R. No. 248035, November 27, 2019
Second Division, Justice Hernando

DOCTRINES: We note that petitioners, who are both American

citizens, have been residing and have been gainfully employed in
the Philippines since the year 2007 (in the case of petitioner Park)
and since 2009 (in the case of petitioner Lee), and are thus living in
the Philippines for at least three continuous years prior to the filing
of the petition for adoption, as required by the Domestic Adoption
Act. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that petitioners'
Petition for Adoption was appropriately filed under the Domestic
Adoption Act in order for the appropriate Family Court or RTC to
take cognizance thereof.

It is a settled rule that adoption statutes, being humane and

salutary, should be liberally construed to carry out the beneficent
purposes of adoption. The interests and welfare of the adopted
child are of primary and paramount consideration, hence, every
reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill
these noble and compassionate objectives of the law.

FACTS: Petitioners Spouses Joon Hyung Park and Kyung Ah Lee are American
citizens who have been residing in the Philippines since 2007 (for petitioner
Park) and since 2009 (for petitioner Lee).

Later, after more than three years residing in the Philippines, petitioners-
spouses filed a Petition for Adoption with Change of Name of the minor
“Mayca Alegado” aka Inna Alegado before the RTC.

The circumstance of petitioner’s deciding to file said petition for adoption

was that an NGO rescued Innah when she was still 22 days old from
trafficking. She was later referred to the DSWD. And when she was a little
over one year old, the DSWD bestowed her care and custody to petitioners-
spouses on January 18, 2014 through a Pre-Adoption Placement Authority.

Later, however, the RTC found that since petitioners-spouses are both
foreigners, the petition for adoption presented a proper case of inter-country
adoption, instead of considering said petition as being appropriately filed
under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998. Hence, the RTC, directed that
transmittal of the copy of the petition and its annexes to the Inter-Country
Adoption Board (ICAB) for appropriate action.

Later, petitioners moved for reconsideration but was denied. They later filed
a Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration but the same was
denied.

Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA which dismissed the
same based on technicalities. Petitioners moved for reconsideration to no
avail. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC has properly ruled that the petition for adoption is a
proper case of inter-country adoption.

HELD: The SC ruled in the negative. It ratiocinated in this wise:

“We resolve to GRANT the instant petition. Thus, the instant case should be
remanded to the RTC for continuation of the adoption proceedings.

x x x

Second, petitioners assert that respondent Judge erred in referring the

Petition for Adoption to the ICAB since said Petition was appropriately filed
under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998. They claim that the Domestic
Adoption Act clearly confers jurisdiction on Family Courts to hear adoption
cases filed by aliens who have been residing in the Philippines for at least
three continuous years.

Petitioners point out that contrary to the pronouncement of the RTC, the
instant case is not appropriate for inter-country adoption proceedings
because the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 applies to aliens who
permanently reside abroad. However, in the instant case, petitioners do not
permanently reside in the U.S. They have been residing in the Philippines for
more than three continuous years prior to the filing of their Petition for
Adoption, as required by the Domestic Adoption Act. To support their claim
and while the adoption proceeding was pending before the trial court,
petitioners prepared the written deposition of Ms. Tifany Markee, an expert
in U.S. immigration and inter-country adoption laws, who was deposed by the
Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. She certified that
petitioners are deemed habitual residents outside the U.S. since they have
resided for more than two years with Innah in the Philippines. This being the
case, under U.S. laws, they are in fact exempted from adopting through
inter-country adoption.

xxx

A comparative review of the relevant provisions on the Domestic Adoption

and Inter-Country Adoption particularly on those who are qualified to adopt
and where to file the application for adoption shows the following: [The Court
then made the comparison using a table, but for our purposes here, we only
state the provisions:

1) Sec. 4 of RA 8552 (or Domestic Adoption Act of 1998) compared with Sec.
9 of RA 8043 or (Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995);

2) Sec. 6 of RA 8552 compared with Sec. 28 of RA 8043.]

In addition, Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC (or Rule on Adoption) provides

that:
'SECTION 32. Duty of Court. - The court, after finding that the petition is
sufficient in form and substance and a proper case for inter-country
adoption, shall immediately transmit the petition to the Inter-Country
Adoption Board for appropriate action.'

We note that petitioners, who are both American citizens, have been residing
and have been gainfully employed in the Philippines since the year 2007 (in
the case of petitioner Park) and since 2009 (in the case of petitioner Lee),
and are thus living in the Philippines for at least three continuous years prior
to the filing of the petition for adoption, as required by the Domestic
Adoption Act.

In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that petitioners' Petition for
Adoption was appropriately filed under the Domestic Adoption Act in order
for the appropriate Family Court or RTC to take cognizance thereof.

Furthermore, We also take cognizance of the agreement entered into

between the Supreme Court and the ICAB regarding the treatment of
foreigners who reside in the Philippines and who file a petition for adoption
through the courts. Thus, said agreement which is incorporated in the DSWD'
s Memorandum dated June 1, 2018, Re: Domestic Adoption by Foreigners
Habitually Residing in the Philippines, reads:

'The Supreme Court en banc in OCA Circular 213-2017 states that foreigners
who have filed an application for adoption with the assistance and approval
of the DSWD MUST attach the following to their petition to the courts:

1. A Certification Declaring a Child as Legally Available for Adoption

(CDCLAA);
2. Home Study Report to be prepared by an ICAB accredited Foreign
Adoption Agency, if not possible/available, a Certification regarding the same
should be executed by the Central Authority or Embassy of the receiving
country;
3. A Certification regarding the alien's legal capacity to adopt and that
his/her government allows the adoptee to enter his/her country as his/her
adopted child. If not possible, a Certification should be executed by the
Central Authority or Embassy of the receiving country.

This implies that these foreigners should still secure a certification from their
Foreign Adoption Agencies and/or Embassies that since they are not
residents in their countries and habitually residing in the Philippines, the said
agencies could not issue the documents required by the domestic courts in
support to their Petitions filed for domestic adoption. If ever their cases will
be endorsed to ICAB by the courts, ICAB will file a manifestation on this
matter so that the domestic adoption could be pursued.'
Thus, even if the instant adoption proceeding would be referred to the ICAB,
as what the RTC did, there is still a high probability that the ICAB will file a
manifestation so that the domestic adoption before the trial court could be
pursued, considering the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the
referral to the ICAB would only cause a delay in the adoption proceedings, a
matter that would be clearly prejudicial to the interest of the adoptee and
the petitioners.

xxx

In view of this, We hold that since the case properly falls under the Domestic
Adoption Act, it is for the best interest of the child that the instant case be
speedily disposed by continuing the proceedings in the trial court for the
determination of whether petitioners are indeed qualified to adopt the child,
instead of inappropriately referring the instant domestic adoption case to the
ICAB where the proceedings may have to start anew and might be referred
back to the trial court for the continuation of the domestic adoption
proceedings. Settled is the rule that in adoption proceedings, the welfare of
the child is of paramount interest. The Supreme Court's pronouncement in In
the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia is instructive:

'Liberal Construction of Adoption Statutes In Favor Of Adoption

It is a settled rule that adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, should
be liberally construed to carry out the beneficent purposes of adoption. The
interests and welfare of the adopted child are of primary and paramount
consideration, hence, every reasonable intendment should be sustained to
promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate objectives of the law.

Lastly, Art. 10 of the Ne w Civil Code provides that: "In case of doubt in the
interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body
intended right and justice to prevail."

This provision, according to the Code Commission, "is necessary so that it

may tip the scales in favor of right and justice when the law is doubtful or
obscure. It will strengthen the determination of the courts to avoid an
injustice which may apparently be authorized by some way of interpreting
the law."'

Accordingly, We find that petitioners' Petition for Adoption was appropriately

filed under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 which the appropriate Family
Court or RTC can properly take cognizance of.”

ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The

disquisitions of the CA are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant case is
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 136, which is
DIRECTED to continue with DISPATCH the adoption proceedings with change
of name involving the minor "Mayca Alegado" a.k.a. "Innah Alegado."