G.R. No.

100835, October 26, 1993

REPUBLIC vs. CA an !UG!E"
#AC$"%
James Anthony Hughes, a natural born citizen of the United States of America, married Lenita
Mabunay Hughes, a Filiino !itizen, "ho herself "as later naturalized as a citizen of that
country. #n $% June &%%', the souses (ointly filed a etition "ith the )*! of Angeles !ity to
adot Ma. !ecilia, +eil and Maria, all surnamed Mabunay, minor niece and nehe"s of Lenita,
"ho had been living "ith the coule even rior to the filing of the etition. *he minors, as "ell as
their arents, gave consent to the adotion. #n $% +ovember &%%', the )*! rendered a
decision granting the etition. A etition for )evie" onCertiorari "as filed "ith this !ourt,
assailing the trial court,s decision. *his !ourt referred the case to the !ourt of Aeals "hich,
on '% July &%%&, affirmed the trial court,s decision.
-SSU./ 01+ the souses Anthony and Lenita Hughes are 2ualified to adot the minor niece and
nehe"s of Lenita under 3hiliine la"
H.L4/
+o, it is clear that James Anthony Hughes is not 2ualified to adot under Article &56 of the
Family !ode because he does not fall under any of the follo"ing e7cetions enumerated in
aragrah 89:/ 8a: A former Filiino citizen "ho see;s to adot a relative by consanguinity< 8b:
#ne "ho see;s to adot the legitimate child of his or her Filiino souse< or 8c: #ne "ho is
married to a Filiino citizen and see;s to adot (ointly "ith his or her Filiino souse a relative
by consanguinity of the latter. 0hile James Anthony un2uestionably is not ermitted to adot,
Lenita, ho"ever, can 2ualify ursuant to aragrah 89:8a:. *he roblem in her case lies, instead,
"ith Article &5= of the !ode, e7ressing as follo"s/
Art. &5=. Husband and "ife must (ointly adot, e7cet in the follo"ing cases/
8&: 0hen one souse see;s to adot his o"n illegitimate child< or
8$: 0hen one souse see;s to adot the legitimate child of the other.
Len&ta 'a( not t)*+ ao,t a-one +&nce Art&c-e 185 re.*&re+ a /o&nt ao,t&on b( t)e
)*+ban an t)e 0&1e, a con&t&on t)at '*+t be rea a-on2 to2et)er 0&t) Art&c-e 183.
.7ecutive #rder +o. %&, dated &> 4ecember &%5?, of 3resident !orazon !. A2uino amended
Article $% of 34 ?'9 and is e7ressed as follo"s @
Art. $%. Husband and "ife may (ointly adot. -n such case, arental authority
shall be e7ercised as if the child "ere their o"n by nature.
I1 one o1 t)e +,o*+e+ &+ an a-&en, bot) )*+ban an 0&1e +)a-- /o&nt-( ao,t.
Ot)er0&+e, t)e ao,t&on +)a-- not be a--o0e.
As amended by .7ecutive #rder %&, 3residential 4ecree +o. ?'9, had thus made it mandatory
for both the souses to (ointly adot "hen one of them "as an alien. *he la" "as silent "hen
both souses "ere of the same nationality.
*he Family !ode has resolved any ossible uncertainty. Article &5= thereof no" e7resses the
necessity for (oint adotion by the souses e7cet in only t"o instances @
8&: 0hen one souse see;s to adot his o"n legitimate child< or
8$: 0hen one souse see;s to adot the legitimate child of the other.
*he resondent court, in affirming the grant of adotion by the lo"er court, has theorized that
James Anthony should merely be considered a Anominal or formal artyA in the roceedings.
*his vie" of the aellate court cannot be sustained. Ao,t&on create+ a +tat*+ t)at &+
c-o+e-( a++&'&-ate to -e2&t&'ate ,atern&t( an 1&-&at&on 0&t) corre+,on&n2 r&2)t+ an
*t&e+ t)at nece++ar&-( 1-o0 1ro' ao,t&on, +*c) a+, b*t not nece++ar&-( con1&ne to, t)e
e4erc&+e o1 ,arenta- a*t)or&t(, *+e o1 +*rna'e o1 t)e ao,ter b( t)e ao,te, a+ 0e-- a+
+*,,ort an +*cce++&ona- r&2)t+. *hese are matters that obviously cannot be considered
inconse2uential to the arties.
0e are not unmindful of the ossible benefits, articularly in this instance, that an adotion can
bring not so much for the rosective adoting arents as for the adoted children themselves.
0e also realize that in roceedings of this nature, ,ara'o*nt con+&erat&on &+ 2&5en to t)e
,)(+&ca-, 'ora-, +oc&a- an &nte--ect*a- 0e-1are o1 t)e ao,te for "hom the la" on adotion
has in the first lace been designed.