International Driver's License

Don't Risk Driving Overseas Without Your International Drivers License, Buy
Now.

Home

Law Firm

Law Library

Laws

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > November 1967 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-24006 November 25, 1967 - JOSEFINA JUAN DE DIOS RAMIREZ MARCAIDA
v. LEONCIO V. AGLUBAT:

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24006. November 25, 1967.]

JOSEFINA JUAN DE DIOS RAMIREZ MARCAIDA, Petitioner-Appellant, v.

LEONCIO V. AGLUBAT, in his capacity as Deputy Local Civil Registrar of Manila,
Respondent-Appellee.

Jose W. Diokno for Petitioner-Appellant.

Solicitor General for Respondent-Appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; CIVIL REGISTRARS; ADOPTION, REGISTRATION OF, COMPULSORY. —

Act 3753 of the Philippine Legislature established local civil registers for recording civil
status of persons, amongst others, (g) adoptions. This is complemented by Arts. 407
and 408 of our Civil Code making such registration compulsory.

2. ID.; ID.; FOREIGN ADOPTIONS REGISTERABLE; REMEDIAL LAW; MANDAMUS. —

Where under the laws of Spain the procedure in adoption is for the court to approve a
petition for adoption and to grant authority, once the judgment becomes final to a
Notary Public to execute a notarial document embodying the order of adoption; and
where such deed of adoption had been authenticated by the Philippine Vice-Consul in
Madrid, Spain, the local civil registrar of Manila cannot refuse to register such deed
upon the ground that under Philippine law adoption can only be had through judicial
proceeding not by notarial document of adoption; such officer can be compelled by
mandamus.

3. ID.; ID.; REGISTRATION OF CIVIL STATUS NOT LIMITED BY LAW TO LOCAL

ADOPTIONS. — Art. 409 of the Civil Code and section 11 of Act 3753 which impose a
duty to a Clerk of Court to ascertain and/or furnish a copy of the decision of the court
to the local civil registrar for purposes of registration of civil status, apparently refer to
adoptions effected in the Philippines, for indeed, Art. 409 of the Civil Code and Section
10 of the Registry law speak of adoption which shall be registered in the municipality or
city where the court issuing the adoption decree is functioning. The Court is not
persuaded to adopt the Government’s theory that what is registerable is only adoption
obtained through a judgment rendered by a Philippine court. This is a misconception
which should be corrected by a broader view, for, if registration is to be narrowed down
to local adoptions, it is the function of Congress, not of the Court, to spell out such
limitation, and we cannot carve out a prohibition where the law does not so state. By
Arts. 407 and 408 of our Civil Code the disputed adoption is registerable.

4. ID.; ID.; RECORDING OF FOREIGN ADOPTION SAFEGUARDED BY CIVIL CODE. —

Where there is no suggestion in the record that prejudice to the state and adoptee, or
any person, would ensue from the registration of foreign adoption, the validity of which
is not under attack, the rights of the State and adoptee and other persons interested
are fully safeguarded by Art. 15 of the 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 having abroad." cralaw virtua1aw library

5. ID.; ID.; RECORDING OF FOREIGN ADOPTIONS NOT INIMICAL TO PRIVATE

INTERNATIONAL LAW. — Private International Law offers no obstacle to recognition of
foreign adoption, the principle being 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 of the Civil Code is that the exercise of incidents to foreign adoption
remains subject to the local law.

DECISION

SANCHEZ, J.:

Refusal of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila to record an Escritura de Adopcion executed in
Madrid, Spain, is now challenged before this Court on appeal by registrant-adoptee from a
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila confirmatory of such refusal.

The disputed deed of adoption had its inception, thus: Prior to October 21, 1958, proceedings for
adoption were started before the Court of First Instance of Madrid, Spain, by Maria Garnier
Garreau, then 84 years of age, adopting Josefina Juana de Dios Ramirez Marcaida, 55 years, a
citizen of the Philippines. Both were residents of Madrid, Spain. On that date, October 21, 1953,
the court granted the application for adoption and gave the necessary judicial authority, once the
judgment becomes final, to execute the corresponding adoption document "con arreglo al articulo
177 del Codigo Civil." The adoption document became necessary for the reason that under Article
177 of the Civil Code of Spain," [a]probada definitivamente la adopcion por el Juez, se otorgara
escritura, expresando en ella las condiciones con que se haya hecho, y se inscribira en el Registro
Civil correspondiente." In compliance, on November 29, 1958, the notarial document of adoption
— which embodies the court order of adoption — whereunder Maria Garnier Garreau formally
adopted petitioner, was executed before Notary Public Braulio Velasco Carrasquedo of Madrid. In
that document, Maria Garnier Garreau instituted petitioner, amongst other conditions, as here
unica y universal heredera de todos sus bienes, derechos y acciones, presentes y futuros.

In conformity with our law, this escritura de adopcion was, on December 10, 1958, authenticated
by Emilio S. Martinez, Philippine Vice Consul, Philippine Embassy, Madrid, who issued the
corresponding certificate of authentication. 1

The document of adoption was filed in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila on January
15, 1959. The Registrar, however, refused to register that document upon the ground that under
Philippine law, adoption can only be had through judicial proceeding. And since the notarial
document of adoption is not judicial proceeding, it is not entitled to registration.

Failing in her move to reconsider, petitioner went to the Court of First Instance of Manila on
mandamus. 2 As adverted to earlier, the mandamus petition did not prosper. The lower court in
its decision of February 28, 1964 dismissed said petition.

Petitioner’s lone assignment of error reads: "The lower court erred in declaring the ‘escritura de
adopcion’ as authenticated by the Philippine Vice Consul in Madrid, Spain, as not registrable in
the Philippines." cralaw virtua1aw library

1. Act 3753 of the Philippine Legislature, entitled "An Act to establish a civil register", in Section
1 thereof, recites that a "civil register is established for recording the civil status of persons, in
which shall be entered", amongst others," (g) adoptions." It provides for local civil registrars.
Complementary thereto are Article 407 of our Civil Code which commands that" [a]cts, events
and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in civil register" ; and
Article 408 of the same Code which, in language similar, directs that" [t]he following shall be
entered in the civil register: . . . (8) adoptions; . . ." The law is clear. The compulsory tenor of
the word "shall" leaves no alternative. It is a command.

2. But the Solicitor General, hewing to the line drawn by the court below, argues that petitioner’s
case does not come within the purview of Article 409 of the Civil Code, which states that: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 409. In cases of legal separation, adoption, naturalization and other judicial orders
mentioned in the preceding article, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court which issued the
decree to ascertain whether the same has been registered, and if this has not been done, to send
a copy of said decree to the civil registry of the city or municipality where the court is
functioning." cralaw virtua1aw library

and Section 11 of Act 3753, which reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 11. Duties of clerks of court to register certain decisions. — In cases of legitimation,
acknowledgment, adoption, naturalization, and change of given or family name, or both, upon
the decree of the court becoming final, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court which issued
the decree to ascertain whether the same has been registered, and if this has not been done, to
have said decree recorded in the office of the civil registrar of the municipality where the court is
functioning." cralaw virtua1aw library

It is at once apparent that the cited legal provisions refer to adoptions effected in the Philippines.
For, indeed, Article 409 of the Civil Code and Section 10 of the Registry Law speak of adoption
which shall be registered in the municipality or city where the court issuing the adoption decree
is functioning. But, the trial court concluded that what is registered is only adoption obtained
through a judgment rendered by a Philippine court.

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 3 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 not 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.

3. 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 Philippine even though living abroad." cralaw virtua1aw library

4. 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. 4 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." 5

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. 6

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.

No costs. So ordered.

Dizon, Actg., C.J., Bengzon, J.P., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1. See: Section 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

2. Civil Case No. 39943, "Josefina Juana de Dios Ramirez Marcaida, Petitioner, v.
Leoncio V. Aglubat, in his capacity as Deputy Local Civil Registrar of Manila,
Respondent." The petition was amended to substitute M.C. Ino, in his capacity as
Local Civil Registrar of Manila, for Leoncio V. Aglubat.

3. Rule 99, Rules of Court, and Chapter V, Title XI, Book J of the Civil Code.

4. See: Salonga, Private International law, 2nd ed., 1957, p. 268, citing Restatement
of the Law, Sec. 143, See also: 15-A C.J.S., pp. 477-478.

5. Leflar, The Law of Conflict of Laws, 1959, ed., p. 342.

6. Commenting on Article 326 of the Civil Code of Spain which reads: "El Registro de
estado civil comprendera las inscripciones o anotaciones de naciminetos,
matrimonios, emancipaciones, reconocimientos y legitimaciones, defunciones,
naturalizaciones y vecindad, y estara a cargo de los Jueces municipales u otros
funcionarios del orden civil en España y de los Agentes consulares o diplomaticos en
el extranjero." F. Bonet Ramón in his Código Civil Comentado, 1962 ed., p. 309, says:
"En cuanto a las anotaciones, dispone la vigente Ley que a peticion del Ministerio
Fiscal o de cualquier interesado se anotara, con valor simplemente informativo y con
expresion de sus circunstancias: . . . 3.° El hecho relativo a españoles o acaecido en
España que afecte al estado civil segun la Ley extranjera; 4.° La sentencia o
resolucion extranjera que afecte también al estado civil, en tanto no se obtenga el
exequatar; . . .

Back to Home | Back to Main

Search

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

November-1967 Jurisprudence

G.R. No. L-23000 November 4, 1967 - MATEO J. PABULARIO v. POMPEYO L.

PALARCA

G.R. No. L-28196 November 9, 1967 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-28202 November 10, 1967 - F.E.F. REMOTIGUE, ET AL. v. SERGIO
OSMEÑA, JR.

G.R. No. L-28239 November 10, 1967 - FORTUNATO MAGTAOS, JR., ET AL. v.
CECILIA MUÑOZ-PALMA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-22731 November 15, 1967 - SILVESTRA GALARPE DE MELGAR v.

ADORACION PAGAYON, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-25323 November 15, 1967 - ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY v.

AMERICAN PIONEER LINE, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-21424 November 15, 1967 - GO BEE BEE, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER
OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-25476 November 15, 1967 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-20516 November 15, 1967 - NORBERTO ROMUALDEZ, ET AL. JR. v.
FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-24544 November 15, 1967 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
v. P.D. MARCHESSINI & CO., INC., ET AL.

G.R. No. 25593 November 15, 1967 - HOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED
STATES LINES CO., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-25663 November 15, 1967 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-20308 November 15, 1967 - PHILIPPINE PRODUCTS CO., ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-22087 November 15, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO
LABIS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-26794 November 15, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH

AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-23117 November 17, 1967 - MOISES M. COLCOL v. PHILIPPINE BANK
OF COMMERCE, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-24782 November 17, 1967 - IN RE: SIA FAW v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL.

G.R. No. L-27811 November 17, 1967 - LACSON-MAGALLANES CO., INC. v. JOSE
PAÑO, ET AL.

A.C. No. 102 November 18, 1967 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR
UNIONS v. EMILIANO C. TABIGNE, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-16832 November 18, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE
ALCANTARA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-19124 November 18, 1967 - INVESTMENT PLANNING CORP., ET AL. v.
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

G.R. No. L-20724 November 18, 1967 - SEGUNDINO DIMITUI, ET AL. v. COURT
OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF PAMPANGA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-21390 November 18, 1967 - RAMIRO V. ARAGON v. MACARIO

PERALTA, JR., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-21913 November 18, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.

G.R. No. L-23338 November 18, 1967 - LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE
INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-23523 November 18, 1967 - PROVINCIAL BOARD OF ZAMBOANGA

DEL NORTE v. DOROTEO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-23879 November 18, 1967 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF

THE PHILIPPINES v. BARBER LINE, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-24097 November 18, 1967 - DOMINGO MANAY v. A. L.

BUENAVENTURA

G.R. No. L-24335 November 18, 1967 - IN RE: HO NGO v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL.

G.R. No. L-24093 November 18, 1967 - BUENAVENTURA BELAMALA v.

MARCELINO POLINAR

G.R. No. L-24263 November 18, 1967 - FULTON INSURANCE COMPANY v.

MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-27275 November 18, 1967 - C & C COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v.

NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

G.R. No. L-24515 November 18, 1967 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v.

COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-25239 November 18, 1967 - EMERITO S. CALDERON v. AMADOR E.

GOMEZ, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-26542 November 18, 1967 - P. D. P. TRANSIT, INC., ET AL. v. MUÑOZ
(HI) MOTORS, INC., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-26883 November 23, 1967 - PORFERIO INGUITO v. COURT OF

APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-20752 November 25, 1967 - IN RE: SINCIO C. YU v. REPUBLIC OF

THE PHIL.

G.R. No. L-23554 November 25, 1967 - HONORIA LAO, ET AL. v. EULOGIO
MENCIAS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-23691 November 25, 1967 - ARSENIO REYES v. ANTONIO NOBLEJAS

G.R. No. L-24006 November 25, 1967 - JOSEFINA JUAN DE DIOS RAMIREZ
MARCAIDA v. LEONCIO V. AGLUBAT

G.R. No. L-25356 November 25, 1967 - IN RE: LI SIU LIAT v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL.

G.R. No. L-27550 November 25, 1967 - ELEUTERIO DEANANEAS v. IGNACIO

MANGOSING, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-20357 November 25, 1967 - IN RE: PEDRO REYES GARCIA v. FELIPE
GATCHALIAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-23772 November 25, 1967 - BARTOLOME FERNANDEZ v. ROBERTO

ZURBANO, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-27961 November 25, 1967 - SOCORRO V. ALEJANO, ET AL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-20292 November 27, 1967 - DOLORES BENEDICTO, ET AL. v.

PANTALEON CAÑADA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-24657 November 27, 1967 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v.

VICTORIANO D. CASTILLO, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-25337 November 27, 1967 - DELFIN MAYORMENTE v. ROBACO

CORPORATION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-25547 November 27, 1967 - JUAN M. SERRANO, ET AL. v. MUÑOZ
(HI) MOTORS, INC., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-21114 November 28, 1967 - FEDERICO FERNANDEZ v. P. CUERVA &
CO.

G.R. No. L-24316 November 28, 1967 - EMILIANO R. FLORENDO, SR. v.

PLAMASUR BUYSER

G.R. No. L-23226 November 28, 1967 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE
: