Puno (C.J.

, Chairperson), Corona, LeonardoDe Castro

and Bersamin, JJ.,concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Note.It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a
constitutionalright,butamerestatutoryprivilegeparties
who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the
statutes or rules allowing it. (DaltonReyes vs. Court of
Appeals,453SCRA498[2005])
o0o

G.R.Nos.16899293.May21,2009.*

IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P.

LIM,MONINAP.LIM,petitioner.
INRE:PETITIONFORADOPTIONOFMICHAELJUDE
P.LIM,MONINAP.LIM,petitioner.
Adoption; Husband and Wife; Husband and wife must jointly
adopt.Itisundisputedthat,atthetimethepetitionsforadoption
werefiled,petitionerhadalreadyremarried.Shefiledthepetitions
byherself,withoutbeingjoinedbyherhusbandOlario.Wehaveno
other recourse but to affirm the trial courts decision denying the
petitions for adoption. Dura lex sed lex. The law is explicit. Section
7, Article III of RA 8552 reads: SEC. 7. Who May Adopt.The
following may adopt: x x x Husband and wife shall jointly
adopt, except in the following cases: x x x The use of the word
shall in the abovequoted provision means that joint adoption by
thehusbandandthewifeismandatory.Thisisinconsonancewith
the concept of joint parental authority over the child which is the
idealsituation.Asthechildtobeadoptediselevatedtothelevelofa
legitimate child, it is but natural to require the spouses to adopt
jointly. The rule also insures harmony between the spouses. The
law is clear. There is no room for ambiguity. Petitioner, having
remarriedatthetimethepetitionsforadop
_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.

99

VOL.588,MAY21,2009

99

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P. Lim

tion were filed, must jointly adopt. Since the petitions for adoption
were filed only by petitioner herself, without joining her husband,

Olario, the trial court was correct in denying the petitions for
adoption on this ground. Neither does petitioner fall under any of
thethreeexceptionsenumeratedinSection7.First,thechildrento
be adopted are not the legitimate children of petitioner or of her
husband Olario. Second, the children are not the illegitimate
children of petitioner. And third, petitioner and Olario are not
legallyseparatedfromeachother.
Same; Same; Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (Republic Act No.
8552); A foreigner adopting together with his or her Philippine
spouse must meet the qualifications set forth in Republic Act No.
8552, and the requirements on residency and certification of the
aliens qualification to adopt cannot be waived.The fact that
OlariogavehisconsenttotheadoptionasshowninhisAffidavitof
Consentdoesnotsuffice.TherearecertainrequirementsthatOlario
must comply being an American citizen. He must meet the
qualificationssetforthinSection7ofRA8552suchas:(1)hemust
provethathiscountryhasdiplomaticrelationswiththeRepublicof
thePhilippines;(2)hemusthavebeenlivinginthePhilippinesfor
atleastthreecontinuousyearspriortothefilingoftheapplication
foradoption;(3)hemustmaintainsuchresidencyuntiltheadoption
decree is entered; (4) he has legal capacity to adopt in his own
country; and (5) the adoptee is allowed to enter the adopters
country as the latters adopted child. None of these qualifications
were shown and proved during the trial. These requirements on
residency and certification of the aliens qualification to adopt
cannot likewise be waived pursuant to Section 7. The children or
adopteesarenotrelativeswithinthefourthdegreeofconsanguinity
or affinity of petitioner or of Olario. Neither are the adoptees the
legitimatechildrenofpetitioner.
Same; Effects; Even if emancipation terminates parental authority,
the adoptee is still considered a legitimate child of the adopter with
all the rights of a legitimate child.Adoption has, thus, the
following effects: (1) sever all legal ties between the biological
parent(s)andtheadoptee,exceptwhenthebiologicalparentisthe
spouseoftheadopter;(2)deemtheadopteeasalegitimatechildof
theadopter;and(3)giveadopterandadopteereciprocalrightsand
obligations arising from the relationship of parent and child,
includingbutnotlimitedto:(i)therightoftheadoptertochoosethe
namethechildistobeknown;and(ii)therightoftheadopterand
adoptee to be legal and compulsory heirs of each other. Therefore,
even if emancipation terminates parental authority, the adoptee is
stillconsideredalegitimatechildoftheadopterwithalltherightsof
alegitimate
100

100

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P. Lim

childsuchas:(1)tobearthesurnameofthefatherandthemother;
(2)toreceivesupportfromtheirparents;and(3)tobeentitledtothe
legitime and other successional rights. Conversely, the adoptive
parents shall, with respect to the adopted child, enjoy all the
benefitstowhichbiologicalparentsareentitledsuchassupportand
successionalrights.
Same; Separation of Powers; Judicial Legislation; While the Court

is not unmindful of the main purpose of adoption statutes, which is

the promotion of the welfare of the children, regrettably, the law is
clear and it cannot be modified without violating the proscription
against judicial legislation.We are mindful of the fact that
adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the interests
andwelfareofthechildtobeofparamountconsideration.Theyare
designed to provide homes, parental care and education for
unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give them the
protectionofsocietyandfamily,aswellastoallowchildlesscouples
or persons to experience the joys of parenthood and give them
legallyachildinthepersonoftheadoptedforthemanifestationof
their natural parental instincts. Every reasonable intendment
should be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and
compassionate objectives of the law. But, as we have ruled in
Republic v. Vergara (270SCRA206[1997]):Wearenotunmindful
ofthemainpurposeofadoptionstatutes,whichisthepromotionof
the welfare of the children. Accordingly, the law should be
construedliberally,inamannerthatwillsustainratherthandefeat
said purpose. The law must also be applied with compassion,
understanding and less severity in view of the fact that it is
intended to provide homes, love, care and education for less
fortunate children. Regrettably, the Court is not in a position to
affirmthetrialcourtsdecisionfavoringadoptioninthecaseatbar,
for the law is clear and it cannot be modified without
violating the proscription against judicial legislation. Until
such time however, that the law on the matter is amended, we
cannot sustain the respondentspouses petition for adoption.
Petitioner,beingmarriedatthetimethepetitionsforadoptionwere
filed, should have jointly filed the petitions with her husband. We
cannotmakeourownlegislationtosuitpetitioner.
Same; Husband and Wife; Dissolution of Marriage; The filing of a
case for dissolution of the marriage between the spouses is of no
momentit is not equivalent to a decree of dissolution of marriage;
Since, at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, the petitioner
was married, joint adoption with the husband is mandatory.
Petitioner, in her Memorandum, insists that subsequent events
wouldshowthatjointadoptioncouldno
101

VOL.588,MAY21,2009

101

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P. Lim

longer be possible because Olario has filed a case for dissolution of
his marriage to petitioner in the Los Angeles Superior Court. We
disagree.Thefilingofacasefordissolutionofthemarriagebetween
petitioner and Olario is of no moment. It is not equivalent to a
decreeofdissolutionofmarriage.Untilandunlessthereisajudicial
decree for the dissolution of the marriage between petitioner and
Olario, the marriage still subsists. That being the case, joint
adoptionbythehusbandandthewifeisrequired.Wereiterateour
rulingabovethatsince,atthetimethepetitionsforadoptionwere
filed,petitionerwasmarriedtoOlario,jointadoptionismandatory.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

RegionalTrialCourtofGeneralSantosCity,Br.22.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.

Teodoro P. Sales forpetitioner.

CARPIO,J.:
The Case
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorarifiledbyMonina
P.Lim(petitioner)seekingtosetasidetheDecision1dated
15 September 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, General
Santos City, Branch 22 (trial court), in SPL. PROC. Case
Nos.1258and1259,whichdismissedwithoutprejudicethe
consolidated petitions for adoption of Michelle P. Lim and
MichaelJudeP.Lim.
The Facts
The following facts are undisputed. Petitioner is an
optometrist by profession. On 23 June 1974, she married
Primo Lim (Lim). They were childless. Minor children,
whoseparentswereunknown,wereentrustedtothembya
certain Lucia Ayuban (Ayuban). Being so eager to have a
child of their own, petitioner and Lim registered the
childrentomakeitappearthattheywerethechildrenspar
_______________
1 Penned by Judge Antonio C. Lubao. Records of SPL. PROC. Case
No.1258,pp.161162andSPL.PROC.CaseNo.1259,pp.163164.
102

102

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P.

Lim
ents.Thechildren2werenamedMichelleP.Lim(Michelle)
and Michael Jude P. Lim (Michael). Michelle was barely
elevendaysoldwhenbroughttotheclinicofpetitioner.She
wasbornon15March1977.3Michaelwas11daysoldwhen
Ayubanbroughthimtopetitionersclinic.Hisdateofbirth
is1August1983.4
Thespousesrearedandcaredforthechildrenasifthey
weretheirown.Theysentthechildrentoexclusiveschools.
TheyusedthesurnameLiminalltheirschoolrecordsand
documents.Unfortunately,on28November1998,Limdied.
On 27 December 2000, petitioner married Angel Olario
(Olario),anAmericancitizen.
Thereafter, petitioner decided to adopt the children by
availing of the amnesty5 given under Republic Act No.
85526 (RA 8552) to those individuals who simulated the
birth of a child. Thus, on 24 April 2002, petitioner filed
separatepetitionsfortheadoptionof
_______________
2ThreechildrenwereactuallyentrustedtopetitionerandLim.The
third,whowasnamedPrimoJudeP.Lim,wasstillaminoratthetime
the petition for adoption was filed. The case was docketed as SPL.
PROC. No. 1260. Petitioner opted not to appeal the decision insofar as

theminorPrimoJudeP.Limwasconcerned.
3Records(SPL.Proc.CaseNo.1258),pp.9496.
4Records(SPL.Proc.CaseNo.1259),pp.6971.
5Section22ofRA8552provides:
SEC.22.Rectification of Simulated Births.A person who has,
priortotheeffectivityofthisAct,simulatedthebirthofachildshallnot
be punished for such act: Provided, That the simulation of birth was
made for the best interest of the child and that he/she has been
consistently considered and treated by that person as his/her own
son/daughter: Provided, further, That the application for correction of
thebirthregistrationandpetitionforadoptionshallbefiledwithinfive
(5) years from the effectivity of this Act and completed thereafter:
Provided, finally, That such person complies with the procedure as
specifiedinArticleIVofthisActandotherrequirementsasdetermined
bytheDepartment.
6An Act Establishing the Rules and Policies on the Domestic
AdoptionofFilipinoChildrenandForOtherPurposes,otherwiseknown
astheDomesticAdoptionActof1998.Approvedon25February1998.
103

VOL.588,MAY21,2009

103

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P.

Lim
MichelleandMichaelbeforethetrialcourtdocketedasSPL
PROC.CaseNos.1258and1259,respectively.Atthetime
of the filing of the petitions for adoption, Michelle was 25
yearsoldandalreadymarried,whileMichaelwas18years
andsevenmonthsold.
Michelle and her husband gave their consent to the
adoption as evidenced by their Affidavits of Consent.7
Michael also gave his consent to his adoption as shown in
his Affidavit of Consent.8 Petitioners husband Olario
likewiseexecutedanAffidavitofConsent9fortheadoption
ofMichelleandMichael.
In the Certification issued by the Department of Social
WelfareandDevelopment(DSWD),Michellewasconsidered
asanabandonedchildandthewhereaboutsofhernatural
parents were unknown.10 The DSWD issued a similar
CertificationforMichael.11
The Ruling of the Trial Court
On 15 September 2004, the trial court rendered
judgmentdismissingthepetitions.Thetrialcourtruledthat
sincepetitionerhadremarried,petitionershouldhavefiled
the petition jointly with her new husband. The trial court
ruled that joint adoption by the husband and the wife is
mandatory citing Section 7(c), Article III of RA 8552 and
Article185oftheFamilyCode.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
decision but the motion was denied in the Order dated 16
June2005.Indenyingthemotion,thetrialcourtruledthat
petitioner did not fall under any of the exceptions under
Section 7(c), Article III of RA 8552. Petitioners argument
that mere consent of her husband would suffice was
untenable because, under the law, there are additional

requirements, such as residency and certification of his

qualification,whichthehusband,whowasnotevenmadea
partyinthiscase,mustcomply.
_______________
7Records(SPL.Proc.CaseNo.1258),pp.147148.
8Id.,atp.147.
9Id.,atp.149.
10Id.,atp.145.
11Records(SPL.Proc.CaseNo.1259),p.8.
104

104

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P.

Lim
As to the argument that the adoptees are already
emancipated and joint adoption is merely for the joint
exercise of parental authority, the trial court ruled that
joint adoption is not only for the purpose of exercising
parental authority because an emancipated child acquires
certain rights from his parents and assumes certain
obligationsandresponsibilities.
Hence,thepresentpetition.
Issue
PetitionerappealeddirectlytothisCourtraisingthesole
issue of whether or not petitioner, who has remarried, can
singlyadopt.
The Courts Ruling
Petitionercontendsthattheruleonjointadoptionmust
berelaxedbecauseitisthedutyofthecourtandtheState
toprotecttheparamountinterestandwelfareofthechildto
be adopted. Petitioner argues that the legal maxim dura
lex sed lex is not applicable to adoption cases. She argues
that joint parental authority is not necessary in this case
since, at the time the petitions were filed, Michelle was 25
years old and already married, while Michael was already
18 years of age. Parental authority is not anymore
necessary since they have been emancipated having
attainedtheageofmajority.
Wedenythepetition.
Joint Adoption by Husband and Wife
It is undisputed that, at the time the petitions for
adoption were filed, petitioner had already remarried. She
filed the petitions by herself, without being joined by her
husbandOlario.Wehavenootherrecoursebuttoaffirmthe
trial courts decision denying the petitions for adoption.
Dura lex sed lex. Thelawisexplicit.Section7,ArticleIIIof
RA8552reads:
SEC.7.Who May Adopt.Thefollowingmayadopt:

105

VOL.588,MAY21,2009

105

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P. Lim

(a)Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil
capacity and legal rights, of good moral character, has not been
convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, emotionally and
psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16)
years older than the adoptee, and who is in a position to support
and care for his/her children in keeping with the means of the
family.Therequirementofsixteen(16)yeardifferencebetweenthe
ageoftheadopterandadopteemaybewaivedwhentheadopteris
thebiologicalparentoftheadoptee,oristhespouseoftheadoptees
parent;
(b)Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above
stated for Filipino nationals: Provided, That his/her country has
diplomaticrelationswiththeRepublicofthePhilippines,thathe/she
has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous
years prior to the filing of the application for adoption and
maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered, that
he/shehasbeencertifiedbyhis/herdiplomaticorconsularofficeor
any appropriate government agency that he/she has the legal
capacity to adopt in his/her country, and that his/her government
allowstheadopteetoenterhis/hercountryashis/heradoptedson/
daughter: Provided, further, That the requirements on residency
and certification of the aliens qualification to adopt in his/her
countrymaybewaivedforthefollowing:
(i)aformerFilipinocitizenwhoseekstoadoptarelative
withinthefourth(4th)degreeofconsanguinityoraffinity;or
(ii)onewhoseekstoadoptthelegitimateson/daughterof
his/herFilipinospouse;or
(iii)one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to
adoptjointlywithhis/herspousearelativewithinthefourth
(4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino
spouses;or
(c)Theguardianwithrespecttothewardafterthetermination
of the guardianship and clearance of his/her financial
accountabilities.
Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the
followingcases:
(i)if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate
son/daughteroftheother;or
(ii)if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate
son/daughter: Provided, however, That the other spouse has
signifiedhis/herconsentthereto;or
(iii)ifthespousesarelegallyseparatedfromeachother.
106

106

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P. Lim

In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one spouse
adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of the other, joint
parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses.
(Emphasissupplied)

Theuseofthewordshallintheabovequotedprovision
means that joint adoption by the husband and the wife is
mandatory.Thisisinconsonancewiththeconceptofjoint
parental authority over the child which is the ideal
situation.Asthechildtobeadoptediselevatedtothelevel
ofalegitimatechild,itisbutnaturaltorequirethespouses
toadoptjointly.Therulealsoinsuresharmonybetweenthe
spouses.12
The law is clear. There is no room for ambiguity.
Petitioner, having remarried at the time the petitions for
adoption were filed, must jointly adopt. Since the petitions
for adoption were filed only by petitioner herself, without
joining her husband, Olario, the trial court was correct in
denyingthepetitionsforadoptiononthisground.
Neither does petitioner fall under any of the three
exceptionsenumeratedinSection7.First,thechildrentobe
adopted are not the legitimate children of petitioner or of
her husband Olario. Second, the children are not the
illegitimatechildrenofpetitioner.Andthird,petitionerand
Olarioarenotlegallyseparatedfromeachother.
ThefactthatOlariogavehisconsenttotheadoptionas
showninhisAffidavitofConsentdoesnotsuffice.Thereare
certain requirements that Olario must comply being an
Americancitizen.Hemustmeetthequalificationssetforth
inSection7ofRA8552suchas:(1)hemustprovethathis
country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the
Philippines;(2)hemusthavebeenlivinginthePhilippines
foratleastthreecontinuousyearspriortothefilingofthe
application for adoption; (3) he must maintain such
residency until the adoption decree is entered; (4) he has
legal capacity to adopt in his own country; and (5) the
adoptee is allowed to enter the adopters country as the
latters adopted child. None of these qualifications were
shownandprovedduringthetrial.
_______________
12Republic v. Toledano,G.R.No.94147,8June1994,233SCRA9.
107

VOL.588,MAY21,2009

107

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P.

Lim
Theserequirementsonresidencyandcertificationofthe
aliens qualification to adopt cannot likewise be waived
pursuant to Section 7. The children or adoptees are not
relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or
affinity of petitioner or of Olario. Neither are the adoptees
thelegitimatechildrenofpetitioner.
Effects of Adoption
Petitioner contends that joint parental authority is not
anymore necessary since the children have been
emancipated having reached the age of majority. This is
untenable.

Parental authority includes caring for and rearing the

children for civic consciousness and efficiency and the
developmentoftheirmoral,mentalandphysicalcharacter
and wellbeing.13 The father and the mother shall jointly
exercise parental authority over the persons of their
common children.14 Even the remarriage of the surviving
parent shall not affect the parental authority over the
children,unlessthecourtappointsanotherpersontobethe
guardianofthepersonorpropertyofthechildren.15
It is true that when the child reaches the age of
emancipationthatis,whenheattainstheageofmajority
or 18 years of age16emancipation terminates parental
authority over the person and property of the child, who
shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil
life.17However,parentalauthorityismerelyjustoneofthe
effects of legal adoption. Article V of RA 8552 enumerates
theeffectsofadoption,thus:
_______________
13Article209,FamilyCode.
14Article210,FamilyCode.
15Article212,FamilyCode.
16RepublicActNo.6809,AnActLoweringtheAgeofMajorityfrom
TwentyOne to Eighteen Years, Amending for the Purpose Executive
OrderNumberedTwoHundredNine,andForOtherPurposes.
17Article236,FamilyCode,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.6809.
108

108

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P.

Lim
ARTICLEV
EFFECTSOFADOPTION
SEC.16.Parental Authority.Except in cases where the
biologicalparentisthespouseoftheadopter,alllegaltiesbetween
the biological parent(s) and the adoptee shall be severed and the
sameshallthenbevestedontheadopter(s).
SEC.17.Legitimacy.The adoptee shall be considered the
legitimate son/daughter of the adopter(s) for all intents and
purposes and as such is entitled to all the rights and obligations
provided by law to legitimate sons/daughters born to them without
discrimination of any kind. To this end, the adoptee is entitled to
love, guidance, and support in keeping with the means of the
family.
SEC.18.Succession.In legal and intestate succession, the
adopter(s)andtheadopteeshallhavereciprocalrightsofsuccession
withoutdistinctionfromlegitimatefiliation.However,iftheadoptee
and his/her biological parent(s) had left a will, the law on
testamentarysuccessionshallgovern.

Adoption has, thus, the following effects: (1) sever all

legaltiesbetweenthebiologicalparent(s)andtheadoptee,
except when the biological parent is the spouse of the
adopter; (2) deem the adoptee as a legitimate child of the
adopter;and(3)giveadopterandadopteereciprocalrights

andobligationsarisingfromtherelationshipofparentand
child,includingbutnotlimitedto:(i)therightoftheadopter
to choose the name the child is to be known; and (ii) the
rightoftheadopterandadopteetobelegalandcompulsory
heirs of each other.18 Therefore, even if emancipation
terminates parental authority, the adoptee is still
considered a legitimate child of the adopter with all the
rights19ofalegitimatechildsuchas:(1)tobearthesurname
of the father and the mother; (2) to receive support from
theirparents;and(3)tobeentitledtothelegitimeandother
successionalrights.Conversely,theadoptiveparentsshall,
withrespecttotheadoptedchild,enjoyallthebenefitsto
_______________
18 Section 33, Article VI, Rules and Regulations to Implement the
DomesticAdoptionActof1998.
19Article174,FamilyCode.
109

VOL.588,MAY21,2009

109

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P.

Lim
whichbiologicalparentsareentitled20suchassupport21and
successionalrights.22
Wearemindfulofthefactthatadoptionstatutes,being
humaneandsalutary,holdtheinterestsandwelfareofthe
childtobeofparamountconsideration.Theyaredesignedto
providehomes,parentalcareandeducationforunfortunate,
needyororphanedchildrenandgivethemtheprotectionof
society and family, as well as to allow childless couples or
personstoexperiencethejoysofparenthoodandgivethem
legally a child in the person of the adopted for the
manifestation of their natural parental instincts. Every
reasonableintendmentshouldbesustainedtopromoteand
fulfillthesenobleandcompassionateobjectivesofthelaw.23
But,aswehaveruledinRepublic v. Vergara:24
Wearenotunmindfulofthemainpurposeofadoptionstatutes,
which is the promotion of the welfare of the children. Accordingly,
thelawshouldbeconstruedliberally,inamannerthatwillsustain
ratherthandefeatsaidpurpose.Thelawmustalsobeappliedwith
compassion,understandingandlessseverityinviewofthefactthat
it is intended to provide homes, love, care and education for less
fortunate children. Regrettably, the Court is not in a position to
affirmthetrialcourtsdecisionfavoringadoptioninthecaseatbar,
for the law is clear and it cannot be modified without
violating the proscription against judicial legislation. Until
such time however, that the law on the matter is amended, we
cannot sustain the respondentspouses petition for adoption.
(Emphasissupplied)

Petitioner, being married at the time the petitions for

adoption were filed, should have jointly filed the petitions
with her husband. We cannot make our own legislation to
suitpetitioner.

_______________
20 Section 34, Article VI, Rules and Regulations to Implement the
DomesticAdoptionActof1998.
21Article195,FamilyCode.
22Section18,ArticleV,RA8552.
23 Bobanovic v. Montes,226Phil.404;142SCRA485(1986).
24336Phil.944,948949;270SCRA206,210(1997).
110

110

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P.

Lim
Petitioner,inherMemorandum,insiststhatsubsequent
events would show that joint adoption could no longer be
possiblebecauseOlariohasfiledacasefordissolutionofhis
marriagetopetitionerintheLosAngelesSuperiorCourt.
We disagree. The filing of a case for dissolution of the
marriagebetweenpetitionerandOlarioisofnomoment.It
isnotequivalenttoadecreeofdissolutionofmarriage.Until
andunlessthereisajudicialdecreeforthedissolutionofthe
marriage between petitioner and Olario, the marriage still
subsists.Thatbeingthecase,jointadoptionbythehusband
andthewifeisrequired.Wereiterateourrulingabovethat
since, at the time the petitions for adoption were filed,
petitioner was married to Olario, joint adoption is
mandatory.
WHEREFORE,weDENYthepetition.WeAFFIRMthe
Decision dated 15 September 2004 of the Regional Trial
Court,GeneralSantosCity,Branch22inSPL.PROC.Case
Nos.1258and1259.Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Corona, LeonardoDe Castro
and Bersamin, JJ.,concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Notes.Whiletherightofanaturalparenttonamethe
childisrecognized,guaranteedandprotectedunderthelaw,
the socalled right of an adoptive parent to rename an
adopted child by virtue or as a consequence of adoption,
even for the most noble intentions and moving
supplications,isunheardofinlawandconsequentlycannot
befavorablyconsidered.(Republic vs. Hernandez,253SCRA
509[1996])
Since there is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child
adopted by her natural father to use, as middle name her
mothers surname, the Court finds no reason why she
shouldnotbeallowedtodoso.(In the Matter of the Adoption
of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia,454SCRA541[2005])
o0o

 Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.