Você está na página 1de 3

PATERNITY AND FILIATION (FC Article 163) Adoption

Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1


CASE No. 179
[G.R. No. 164948. June 27, 2006.]
DIWATA RAMOS LANDINGIN, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
PONENTE: CALLEJO, SR., J.:
FACTS AS STATED BY DIWATA and COMPANY:
Diwata Ramos Landingin, a citizen of USA, of Filipino parentage and a
resident of Guam, USA, filed a petition for the adoption of minors
Elaine Dizon Ramos who was born on August 31, 1986; Elma Dizon
Ramos, who was born on September 7, 1987; and Eugene Dizon
Ramos who was born on August 5, 1989. The minors are the natural
children of Manuel Ramos, Diwata's brother, and Amelia Ramos.
Manuel died on May 19, 1990, the children were left to their paternal
grandmother, Maria Taruc Ramos.
Amelia, went to Italy, re-married there and now has two children by
her second marriage and no longer communicated with her children
by Manuel Ramos nor with her in-laws from the time she left up to
the institution of the adoption.
Minors - financially supported by the Diwata and her children, and
relatives abroad.
Maria passed away on November 23, 2000, Diwata desires to adopt
the children.
Minors - have given their written consent to the adoption.
Diwata is qualified to adopt as shown by the fact that she is a 57year-old widow, has children of her own who are already married,
gainfully employed and have their respective families; she lives alone
in her own home in Guam, USA, where she acquired citizenship, and
works as a restaurant server.
March 5, 2002, the court ordered the DSWD to conduct a case study.
Diwata testified in her behalf. She also presented Elaine Ramos, the
eldest of the adoptees, to testify on the written consent executed by
her and her siblings.
Diwata marked in evidence the Affidavit of Consent purportedly
executed by her children Ann, Errol, Dennis and Ricfel Branitley, all

surnamed Landingin, and notarized by a notary public in Guam, USA,


as proof of said consent.
May 24, 2002, Elizabeth Pagbilao, Social Welfare Officer II of the
DSWD, Field Office III, Tarlac, submitted a Child Study Report, with the
following recommendation: (see page 1 of the original case, right
part, 5th to 7th paragraphs) *Take special notice of the 1st Reason
RTC Ruling: Petition for Adoption is GRANTED.
OSG appealed the decision of RTC.
CA Ruling: REVERSED

ISSUE: Whether or not Diwata can adopt the minor children of her
deceased brother.
HELD: NO. Diwata cannot adopt the minor children of her deceased
brother.
RATIO: Consent of the biological parent, in this case, the mother
(Amelia Ramos) is indispensible.
CA Reasons:
o Diwata failed to adduce in evidence the voluntary consent
of Amelia Ramos, the children's natural mother.
o the affidavit of consent of the petitioner's children could not
also be admitted in evidence as the same was executed in
Guam, USA and was not authenticated or
acknowledged before a Philippine consular office,
o and although petitioner has a job, she was not stable enough
to support the children.
SC: We note that in her Report, Pagbilao declared that she was able
to interview Amelia Ramos who arrived in the Philippines with her
son, John Mario in May 2002. If said Amelia Ramos was in the
Philippines and Pagbilao was able to interview her, it is incredible
that the latter would not require Amelia Ramos to execute a
Written Consent to the adoption of her minor children. Neither
did the petitioner bother to present Amelia Ramos as witness in
support of the petition.
This case is not abandonment of the parent of her children, evidences
show that Amelia was ashamed that her in-laws were providing for
them after her husbands death. Her parents are also undergoing
medication, so they mortgaged their farm and she went to Italy to
work.

She also send financial support for her children, though small
compared to what her in-laws are giving.
SC: Amelia had not intended to abandon her children, or to
permanently sever their mother-child relationship. She was merely
impelled to leave the country by financial constraints. Yet, even while
abroad, she did not surrender or relinquish entirely her motherly
obligations of rearing the children to her now deceased mother-inlaw, for, as claimed by Elaine herself, she consulted her mother,
Amelia, for serious personal problems. Likewise, Amelia continues to
send financial support to the children, though in minimal amounts as
compared to what her affluent in-laws provide.

RULING: Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.


SPECIAL PARENTAL AUTHORITY (FC Article 216) Adoption
Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1
CASE No. 188
ELENA, OSCAR, CELIA, TERESITA and VIRGILIO, all surnamed
LINDAIN. petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES
APOLINIA VALIENTE and FEDERICO ILA, respondents.
PONENTE: GRIO-AQUINO, J.:
FACTS:
When Elena et al., were still minors, they were already the registered
owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
NT-63540 (Exh. D-1).
Their mother, Dolores Luluquisin, then already a widow and acting as
guardian of her minor children, sold the land for P2,000 under a Deed
of Absolute Sale of Registered Land (Exh. 2) to the spouses Apolonia
Valiente and Federico Ila.
Although at first they were reluctant to buy the property as the sale
would not be legal, the registered owners thereof being all minors,
upon advice of their counsel, the late Atty. Arturo B. Pascual, and the
counsel of Dolores Luluquisin, Atty. Eustaquio Ramos, who notarized
the documents, that the property could be sold without the written
authority of the court, considering that its value was less than
P2,000, they bought the property and had it registered in their
names.

Elena et al., contend that the sale of the lot by their mother to the
spouses is null and void because it was made without judicial
authority and/or court approval.
The spouses, on the other hand, contend that the sale was valid:
o as the value of the property was less than P2,000,
o their right to rescind the contract which should have been
exercised four (4) years after reaching the age of majority,
has already prescribed.
RTC Ruling: Sale to the spouses is declared NULL and VOID.
CA Ruling: REVERSED, applying the ruling of SC in Ortaez vs. Dela
Cruz, O.G., Vol. 60, No. 24, pp. 3434, 3438-3439, that:
o "A father or mother acting as legal administrator of the
property of the child under parental authority cannot,
therefore, dispose of the child's property without judicial
authority if it is worth more than P2,000.00 notwithstanding
the bond that he has filed for the protection of the Child's
property. But when the value of such property is less than
P2,000.00, the permission of the court for its alienation or
disposition may be dispensed with. The father or mother, as
the case may be, is allowed by law to alienate or dispose of
the same feely, subject only to the restrictions imposed by
the scruples of conscience."
ISSUE: Whether or not judicial approval was necessary for the sale of the
minors' property by their mother.
HELD: YES. Judicial approval was necessary for the sale of the minors'
property by their mother.
RATIO: Art. 320 of the New Civil Code was already in force when
the assailed transaction occurred. (see page 2 of the original case,
lower right part for the exact provision)

Under the law, a parent, acting merely as the legal (as distinguished
from judicial) administrator of the property of his/her minor children,
does not have the power to dispose of, or alienate, the property of
said children without judicial approval.
The powers and duties of the widow as legal administrator of her
minor children's property as provided in Rule 84 of the Rules of Court
entitled, "General Powers and Duties of Executors and
Administrators" are only powers of possession and management. Her
power to sell, mortgage, encumber or otherwise dispose of

the property of her minor children must proceed from the


court, as provided in Rule 89 which requires court authority and
approval.
Side Issues were also answered:
o One who acquires or purchases real property with knowledge
of a defect in the title of his vendor cannot claim that he
acquired title thereto in good faith as against the owner of
the property or of an interest therein (remember the spouses
knew that what theyre doing is illegal)

The minor's action for reconveyance has not yet prescribed


for "real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty
years" (Art. 1141, Civil Code). Since the sale took place in
1966, the action to recover the property had not yet
prescribed when the petitioners sued in 1987. (on the issue
of prescription)

RULING: RTC Ruling is REINSTATED for being correct.