G.R. No.

L-22523 September 29, 1967

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR, EDWIN VILLA Y MENDOZA. LUIS E. SANTOS, JR. and
EDIPOLA V. SANTOS, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
1. Appeal from the decision of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, dismissing the petition instituted
byspouses Luis Santos Jr and Edipola Santos for the adoption of the minor Edwin Villa y Mendoza.
2. Trial Court DISMISSED the petition.
a. A critical consideration in this case is the fact that the parents of the minor to be adopted are also the parents
of the petitioner-wife. The minor therefore, is the latters legitimate brother.
b. In this proceeding, the adoption will result in an INCONGRUOUS situation where the minor Edwin, alegitimate
brother of the petitioner-wife will also be her son. In the opinion of the trial court thatincongruity not neutralized
by other circumstances absent herein, should prevent the adoption.
c. Petitioners moved to reconsider the decision. The same was denied. Hence, this appeal.
3. January 8, 1963: petitioners are praying that the minor Edwin, 4 years old, be declared their son by
adoption.Evidence was presented that the order setting the case for hearing has been duly published. There
having beenno opposition registered to the petition, the petitioners were permitted to adduce their evidence.
4. Both petitioners are 32 years of age, Filipinos, residing in Manila. They were married in 1957 and havemaintained
a conjugal home of their own. They do not have a child of their own by legal fiction nor has any ofthem been
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
5. Edwin, is a child of Francisco Villa and Florencia Mendoza who are the common parents of the petitioner-wife,
Edipola Villa Santos and the minor.
6. Petitioner-husband is a lawyer with business interests in textile development enterprise and IBA electric plantand
is the general manager of Medry Inc. and the secretary-treasurer of Bearen Enterprises. Petitioner-wife is anurse
by profession.
7. Edwin was born on May 2, 1958. He was a sickly child since birth. His parents entrusted him to the petitionersdue
to his impairing health.
8. Deep and profound love for each other was developed between the petitioners and the child.
9. Natural parents testified that they have VOLUNTARILY given their consent to the adoption.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an elder sister may adopt a younger brother.
HELD:
The fact alone that petitioner wife and minor are siblings should not prevent the adoption.
The relationship established by the adoption is limited to the adopting parents and does not extend to their otherrelatives,
except as expressly provided by law.Thus, the adopted child canot be considered as a relative of te ascendants and
collaterals of the adopting parents, nor f thelegitimate children which they may have after the adoption except that the law
imposes certain impediments to marriage byreason of adoption. Neither are the children of the adopted considered as
descendants of the adopter. The adoption underconsideration would not be objectionable on the ground alone of the
resulting relationship between the adopter and theadopted.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: No provision in the law that expressly prohibits adopting among relatives, petitioners oughtnot to
be prevented.
: