Adoption

-is a juridical act, a proceeding in rem, which creates between two persons a
relationship similar to that which results from legitimate paternity and filiation.
-according to Black’s Law Dictionary, it is the creation of a parent-child relationship by
judicial order between two parties who usually are unrelated.

DOMESTIC ADOPTION ACT of 1998 (R.A. No. 8552)

DETERMINATIVE LAW (as to whether the relationship of adoption has been created or not is as
follows:
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 and that of the child will be applied concurrently.
General Rule: the legal effect of the adoption is determined by the same law that created
the relationship of adoption.

Exception: where public policy or the interests of its inhabitants forbid its enforcement and
demand the substitution of the lex fori.

LEGAL EFFECTS OF ADOPTION:

1. The successional rights of the adopted child;
2. The parental authority of the adopter over the adopted child; and
3. The entitlement of the adopted child to all the rights and obligations provided by law to
legitimate children (R.A. No. 8552, Sections 16-18)

QUALIFICATIONS for an Alien to be entitled to adopt under R.A. No. 8552 or the Domestic
Adoption Act of 1998:
1. Of legal age;
2. In possession of full civil capacity and legal rights;
3. Of good moral character;
4. Not convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;
5. Emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children;
6. At least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee;
7. In a position to support and care for his children;
8. His country has diplomatic relations with the Philippines;
9. A resident in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of
the application for adoption and he maintains such residence until the adoption decree
is entered;
10. Issued a certificate of legal capacity to adopt in his country by his diplomatic or consular
office; and
11. His government allows the adoptee to enter his country as his adopted son/daughter
(R.A. 8552, Sec. 7).
The requirement on Residency and Certificate of Qualification (nos. 9 and 10 in the
immediately preceding enumeration) may be waived for the following:
a. A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4 th) degree of
consanguinity/affinity;
b. One who seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of his/her Filipino spouse; or
c. One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his/her spouse a
relative within the fourth (4 th) degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse
(R.A. No. 8552, Sec. 7)

*The Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 still requires that the husband and wife must jointly
adopt. Where the spouses are legally separated, the husband or the wife can adopt alone
and the consent of the other spouse is no longer necessary.

The requirement of sixteen (16) years difference between the adopter and adoptee (no. 6 of
the Qualifications of Aliens) may be waived if the adopter is:
1. The biological parent of the adoptee; or
2. The spouse of the adoptee’s parent (R.A. 8552, Sec. 7).

INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION
- Is a socio-legal process of adopting a Filipino child by a foreigner or a Filipino citizen
permanently residing abroad where the petition is filed, the supervised trial custody
is undertaken and the decree of adoption is issued outside the Philippines. This is an
alternative means of child-care if the child cannot be cared for in any suitable
manner in the Philippines (R.A. No. 8043. Sec. 3).

Law Governing the Adoption Proceeding

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 (Republic v. Miller, G.R. No. 125932,
April 21, 1999).
*Private International Law offers no obstacle to recognition of foreign 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. 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. Implicit in Art. 15 of the Civil Code is that the exercise of incidents to
foreign adoption remains subject to the local law (Marcaida v. Aglubat, G.R. No. L-24006,
November 25, 1967).
Republic v. Miller, G.R. No. 125932, April 21, 1999
Facts
On July 29, 1988, the spouses Claude A. Miller and Jumrus S. Miller, filed with the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 59, Angeles City, a verified petition to adopt the minor Michael Magno
Madayag

The minor Michael Magno Madayag is the legitimate son of Marcelo S. Madayag, Jr.
and Zenaida Magno. Born on July 14, 1987, at San Fernando, La Union, the minor has
been in the custody of respondents since the first week of August 1987. Poverty and
deep concern for the future of their son prompted the natural parents who have no
visible means of livelihood to have their child adopted by respondents. They executed
affidavits giving their irrevocable consent to the adoption by respondents.

The Department of Social Welfare and Development, through its Regional office at San
Fernando, Pampanga, recommended approval of the petition on the basis of its
evaluation that respondents were morally, emotionally and financially fit to be adoptive
parents and that the adoption would be to the minor's best interest and welfare. On
August 3, 1998, the Family Code became effective, prohibiting the adoption of a Filipino
child by aliens. On May 12, 1989, the trial court rendered decision granting the petition
for adoption In due time, the Solicitor General, in behalf of the Republic, interposed an
appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Issue:
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.

Held:
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
Marcaida v. Aglubat, G.R. No. L-24006, November 25, 1967
Facts:
Prior to October 21, 1958, proceedings for adoption were started before the CFI- Madrid,
Spain by Mari 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. The court
granted the application for adoption and gave the necessary judicial authority, once the
judgment becomes final, to execute the corresponding adoption document.

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 Gernier
Garreau instituted petitioner, amongst other conditions as here unica y universal heredera de
todos sus bienes, derechos y acciones, presentes y futuros.

on December 10, 1953 Philippine Vice Consul, Philippine Embassy, Madrid issued the
corresponding certificate of authentication.

The document of adoption was filed in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila. The
Registrar refused to register it on the ground that under Philippine law, adoption can only be had
through judicial proceeding. And since the notarial document of adoption is not a judicial
proceeding, it is not entitled to registration. Petitioner went to CFI- Manila on mandamus. The
lower court dismissed said petition and decided that what is registrable is only adoption
obtained through a judgment rendered by a Philippine court.
Issue:
Can the order of adoption issued by the CFI- Madrid can be registered in the
Philippines?
HELD:
Yes. 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."

The Supreme Court held 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
 WILLS AND SUCCESSION

Two Theories in determining the proper law from the transmission of successional Rights:

1. Unitary or Single System

Only one law determines transmission of real and personal properties.
e.g. Art 16, NCC: Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
country where it is stipulated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and
to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall
be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever
may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be
found.
2. Split of Scission System
a. Succession to Real Property: Lex Situs
b. Succession to personal property: law of the domicile of deceased at the time of death.

RULES ON WILLS AND SUCCESSION

ON EXTRINSIC VALIDITY
When a will is made by an alien abroad:
Two principles may apply:
lex nationalii: the law of the nationality of the deceased shall govern
ART 816: The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the
formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities observed
in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes.
Lex loci celebrationis: the law where the instrument was executed shall govern.
ART 17: The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by
the laws of the country in which they are executed.

When a will is made by a Filipino abroad:

ART 815: When a Filipino is in a foreign country, he is authorized to make a will in any of the forms
established by the law of the country in which he may be. Such will may be probated in the Philippines.
When a will is made by an alien in the Philippines:
ART 817: A will made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another country, which is executed in
accordance with the law of the country of which he is a citizen or subject, and which might be proved and
allowed by the law of his own country, shall have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of
the Philippines.

IN CASE OF JOINT WILLS

Joint Will- A will executed by two or more persons jointly, or in the same instrument, either for their
reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person. (ART 818, New Civil Code)
If joint will executed by an alien:
Such is valid and may be probated in the Philippines provided that the will is valid under the principles of
lex domicilii or lex loci celebrationis
If the will is made by a filipino citizen abroad:
ART 819 of the New Civil Code is controlling:
Wills, prohibited by the preceding article, executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid in
the Philippines, even though authorized by the laws of the country where they may have been executed.
It is worth noting however, that the Filipino national is not barred from admitting the will to probate in
the country where the will was executed.
If the will is made by an alien and a filipino abroad
Legal luminary Sempio-Dy is of the opinion that such a will shall be valid as to the alien if his national
law or law of his domicile allows it, but such will be void with respect to the Filipino, the same being
against our public policy on joint wills.

INTRINSIC VALIDITY

Order of Succession, amount of successional rights, and the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will
Art 16, paragraph 2 of the New Civil Code provides:
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the
amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated
by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of
the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.

Capacity to succeed
Governed by the law of the nationality of the decedent (ART 1039, NCC)

PROBATE OF WILLS MADE ABROAD

If the will has not yet been probated:

The will must be fully probated here and due execution must be shown
If the will has already been probated abroad:
The will must also be probated here because as a general rule, a foreign judgment cannot have
extraterritorial effect. But instead of proving due execution, generally it is enough to ask for the
reinforcement here of the foreign judgment of the probate abroad.
RULE ON WILLS ALLOWED AND PROVED ABROAD
Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of each country, may be allowed,
filed and recorded by the proper court in the Philippines. (Sec 1, Rule 77 RULES OF COURT)

REVOCATION OF WILLS
Philippine Laws shall apply:

 If the revocation takes place in the Philippines, whether the testator is domiciled in the
Philippines or in some other country; or
 If revocation takes place outside of the Philippines, by a testator domiciled in the Philippines.
However, if the revocation is done outside the Philippines by a testator who does not have domicile in this
country. Either:

 The law of the place where the will was made; or

 The law of the place in which the testator had his domicile at the time of revocation shall govern

Other Rules in Philippine Conflicts Law

INTERPRETATION OF WILLS
  The will shall be interpreted in accordance with the testator’s intention;
 If the term of the will are clear an unambiguous such shall be interpreted in their ordinary
meaning (Verba Legis);
 Interpretation of ambiguous words made in accordance with the law which was most probably in
the mind of the testator when he used those words and with which he is presumed to be most
familiar;
 If the will admits of different interpretations, that which will make the dispositions operative shall
be preferred;
 The interpretation that will give that will the most favorable construction to accomplish its
purpose shall be made;
 Every effort should be made to prevent intestacy in keeping with the policy of respecting the will
of the testator; provided that this can be ascertained; or
 The national law of the deceased should apply since we may reasonably presume that this was the
intention of the testator.

DALTON v. GIBERSON
G.R. No. L-4113. June 30, 1952
FACTS: William R. Giberson was a citizen of the State of Illinois, United States, and a resident of
Cebu. William died on August 6, 1943 in the concentration camp at the University of Sto. Tomas,
Manila, Philippines. On February 10, 1949, Lela G. Dalton presented an application in the lower court
calling for the legalization of a document which, it claims, is the holographic will of William, granted
on April 29, 1920 in San Francisco, California. Spring Giberson, legitimate son of William, filed a
motion requesting the dismissal of the request, claiming that, before a will made in a foreign country
may be legalized in the Philippines, it must be demonstrated that the will had been previously legalized
in California and that the request of Lela does not allege that the will had already been legalized in
California.

ISSUE: Whether or not a testament granted abroad is required to be previously legalized abroad before
it can be legalized in the Philippines.

HELD: NO. A person may dispose of its assets after his death by will. The granting of a will is a legal
act which can be performed in the Philippines or abroad; if it is granted in a foreign country, it has to be
in accordance with the laws of that country. This is a universally adopted rule. Article 635 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, respecting the freedom of the testator to grant his will anywhere, provides that the
will legalized in a foreign country in accordance with the laws of that country may also be legalized in
the Philippines. This provision is substantive and creates the rights of the beneficiaries of the will since
they are assured to have the same be legalized in the Philippines. Wills made outside of the Islands, if
they can be legalized in the country in which they were granted, gives them cause of action for judicial
order in compliance with the last will of the testator irrespective of the place of execution. Article 1 of
Rule 78 does not prevent a person to legalize in the Philippines a testament granted in a foreign
country, if it can be legalized according to the laws of that country. The will is not required to be
previously legalized in that country. Therefore, Spring’s contention is untenable.

Administration of Estates

Administration of estate, like probate of will, is PROCEDURAL in nature.

While the law of the nationality of the decedent governs the distribution of his estate, the law of the State
that appointed the administrator or executor governs the administration.
Hence, if the administrator was appointed in the Philippines, Philippine laws and rules, such as the Rules
of Court (Rules, for brevity), will apply.

The following are the procedural rules and doctrines relevant to Private International Law and
administration of estate:

1) Rule 78 of the Rules

Administration of estate applies in any of the following instances:
1) the decedent left NO will,
2) the will is INVALID,
3) the valid will did NOT designate an executor, or
4) the executor designated Denies the trust, Fails to file a bond, or is Incompetent.

2) Rule 77 of the Rules

The letters of testamentary or administration shall ONLY extend to all the estate of the testator in the
Philippines.

COMMENT: The letters of administration granted in a State extends only to the properties within such
State. If the properties to be administered are situated in another State, the interested persons must secure
another letters of administration in such State.

3)Principal Domiciliary Administration

Administration granted in the country of the decedent’s last domicile.

4)Ancillary Administration
Administration granted in other countries where the decedent also left properties.
(Tayag v Benguet Consolidated, Inc., G.R. No. L-23145, November 29, 1968)

Distribution of Estates

Conflict Rules as to Distribution of Estate if a Person Dies Intestate

1) Civil Law Countries (Philippines) - law of the nationality of the decedent or lex nationalii

Distribution of Estate, as stated, is regulated by the law of the nationality of the decedent (New Civil
Code, Art. 16, par. 2)

Article 16, par. 2 provides “However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the
order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be
found. “

2) Common Law Countries (USA or Great Britain) - split or scission system, i.e., law of the domicile
of the decedent or lex domicili for personal property, and law of the place where the real property is
situated or lex situs for real property

Caduciary Rights

When the decedent left No Heirs and No Will

For Philippine laws, the State is the last heir of the decedent. Hence, it will succeed to ALL of the
property of the decedent within the Philippines by instituting Escheat proceedings.

CASE DIGEST

Tayag v Benguet Consolidated, Inc.

G.R. No. L-23145
November 29, 1968

Facts:

The Estate of Idonah Slade Perkins (Perkins) had 2 administrators. The domiciliary administrator was
County Trust Company of New York (County), and the ancillary administrator was Renato Tayag
(Tayag). The latter was appointed by the CFI Manila. Benguet Consolidated, Inc. (Benguet) was a
Philippine corporation where Perkins owned 33,002 shares, as evidenced by stock certificates.

A dispute arose between County and Tayag as to which of them was entitled to the possession and
custody of the stock certificates Perkins left. The CFI Manila ruled in favour of Tayag and ordered
County to give the stock certificates to him. However, County refused to follow the order. Hence, Tayag
filed a petition to the court to issue an order declaring the certificate or certificates of stocks in the name
of Perkins be declared as lost.

Benguet opposed the same. It contended that they cannot be declared as lost because the certificates
actually exist, and they are possessed by County. Despite the contention of Benguet, the CFI Manila
granted the petition in favour of Tayag.

Issue:

Whether the ancillary administrator Tayag is authorized to possess the stock certificates, so Benguet must
issue new stock certificates in favour of him

Held:

Yes, Tayag is authorized to possess the stock certificates because the power of the ancillary administrator
extends to ALL the assets of a decedent found within the State where his administration was granted .
Hence, the domiciliary administrator appointed in one State has no power over the property in another
State where an ancillary administrator was appointed.

Here, Perkins left 33,002 shares of Benguet, a Philippine corporation. Hence, the stock certificates
evidencing such shares must be delivered to the ancillary administrator appointed in the Philippines
because the assets in question are deemed found within the Philippines.