Brehm vs Republic Case Digest

Brehm vs Republic

FACTS:
Brehm was a non-resident alien of the Philippines. He filed a petition however, to adopt
his step-child. He argued that Article 335 of the New Civil Code which prohibits a non-
resident alien to adopt was inapplicable because it covers adoption only for the purpose
of establishing a relationship of paternity
and filiations where none existed, but not where the adopting parents are not total
strangers to the child. Petitioners further contended that they could adopt pursuant to
Article 332 of the New Civil Code which expressly authorizes the adoption of a step-
child by a stepfather.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Brehm as a non resident may adopt a child

Held:
Article 338 should be construed in connection with Article 335. Article 33G clearly states
that "The following cannot adopt ... (4) non-resident aliens." It is therefore mandatory
because it contains words of positive prohibition and is couched in negative terms,
importing that the act required shall not be done otherwise than designated (50 Am.
JUl'. 51). On the other hand, Article 338 provides that "the following may be adopted: (3)
step-child by the step-father or step-mother." This provision is merely directory and can
only be given operation if the same does not conflict with the mandatory provisions of
Article 335, Moreover, it is Article 335 that confers jurisdiction to the court over the case
and before Article 338 may or can be availed of, such jurisdiction must first be
established. There is no question that petitioner Brehm is a non-resident. By his own
testimony, he supplied the conclusive proof of his status, and no amount of reasoning
will overcome the same. For this reason he cannot adopt.
Buyco vs PNB

Facts:
The petitioner was indebted to respondent which was secured by a mortgage of
real property. Petitioner is a holder of Backpay Acknowledgment Certificate that
is more than sufficient to cover the loan which he offered as payment for the
deficit on April 24, 1956.
Respondent denied the offered payment due to its amended Charter which
provides that "...the authority herein granted shall not be used as regards
backpay certificates", enacted on June 16, 1956 as RA 1576.
Petitioner filed this case praying that the respondent be compelled to accept his
Backpay Acknowledgment Certificate as payment of his obligation.

Issue: Can RA 1576 be applied retroactively?

Decision:
NO. "Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided" (Art.
4, New Civil Code).
This has bearing on the case at bar inasmuch as the herein mentioned Act does
not contain any provision regarding its retroactivity.
Therefore, the present case should be governed by the law at the time the offer in
question was made.