En El Asunto De La Solicitud De Norman H. Ball Para Adoptar Al Menor George William York, Jr. Norman H. Ball, Solicitante-Apelado, contra Republica De Filipinas, Opositora-Apelante, G. R. No. L-5272, Dic. 21, 1953 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: En El Asunto De La Solicitud De Norman H. Ball Para Adoptar Al Menor George William York, Jr. Norman H. Ball, Solicitante-Apelado, contra Republica De Filipinas, Opositora-Apelante, G. R. No. L-5272, Dic. 21, 1953 [Supreme Court Decisions]
Language: Spanish
Source: The Lawyers Journal Volume XIX (Issue No.6) June 30, 1954
Year: 1954
Subject: Civil law -- Philippines; Adoption -- Philippines
Rights
Abstract: [Norman H. Ball, an American citizen and domiciled in the Philippines, had requested the adoption of the minor George William York, Jr. who was born on February 29, 1948. The Public Prosecutor's Office opposed. After the corresponding hearing, the Court of First The Manila court decreed the adoption of said minor in accordance with with article 338 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Against this decision, as it has been amended, on October 21, 1951 he appealed the Public Prosecutor's Office.]
Fulltext: his adopted brother who, on account of having been a.dopted, bttomes his co-heir. t.o the sound judgment of the judge handling the case. In other jurisdictions it is held \.hat it is not necessary to offer to bring mont!y into court, but only to bring in before other proceedings are taken. (33 C.J. 445.) It has also been held th~t the stake- 2. holder may be mliode the bailee of the fund pending the litigation. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHAT CONSTITUTE IMPEDIMENT AS WOULD PREVENT SAID ADOPTION.-The possibility of adopting a step-child depends on the non-existence of legitimate heirs of the "dopting parent. When the Code Commission said in its report that the adoption of a step-child softens family relations it had in mind a case in which none of the legitima.te children will be prejudjced by Che said adoption. <33 C.J. 451; Wagoner v. Buckley, 13 N.Y.S. 599.> Finally Section ·6 of Rule 124 provides: "Sec. 6. Means to carry jurisdictiO'll. into effed. - When :ri ~:il{~;~'!!,~ii~: ;!o~;::e:~~d o~~e: ;:~~~ ~:~!~;!~~\:f:~::~ 3 · JD.; JD.; ID.; ART. 335 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE HAS CHANGED SYSTEM OF ADOPTION UNDEH CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.-Article 766 of the Codigo de Procedimiento Civil is of American origin. It does not: explicitly prohibit the adoption of a step-child by the step father who has a legitimate child; on the contrary it l!tates that the step-father may ask for the adoption of the ~tep-child. 'l'he Codigo de Procedimiento Civil has revoked the s)stem of adoption in the Civil Code <Jn re adoption of Emilia O. G'.lzman, 40 O.G., 2083J, which doctrine was confirmed in Joaquin v. Navarro and Castro in the Int.estate Estate of the spouses Angela Joaquin alld Joaquin_ Navarro, 46 O.G., <Supp. lJ, 155. Jn order to change this system of the Codigo de Procedimiento Civil which pem1its the adoption of a step-child by a step. father who lms a leiiitimate child, an adoption which may produce grave troubles wit'hin the family which believes in forced heirs, the Code Commission. adopted Article 174 of the Spanish Civil C:ide with some amendnlents, which is now Article 335 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. it into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by these rules, any suita.ble process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which i1.ppears most conformable to t.he spirit of said rules." The court's order of which petitioners comphiin has for its avowed purpose the promotion of the interest not only of Ceramics but of all the other defendanls, and it contains adequate safeguards against any substa.ntial injucy to any of the interested parties. The sole ground of objectic-n to the question ori:ler by two of the defendants-to wit: "the surety bond con not oe an adequate substitute for money" - is, flimsy; and the fears expressed by this Court regarding the delay!:! and difficulties of enforcing a bond could easily be overcome by the selection of a solvent surety of good standing and adequate provisions in the undert:aking insuring prompt payment when the money was needed. If the court can allow the plaintiff to keep the fund in his pC"seession during the pendency of the suit wil'hout obligation to give any security, why can it not make a responsible third party, with good and suf. ficicnt bond, the bailee of the money? It is of interest to not:e that the remedy by interpleader is an equitable one (33 C.J. 419>, and that even in making the final award t'he court is not necessarily circumscribed by the legal rights of the parties. T~us, "where the court has properly acquired jurisdiction of the cause u between defendants, it is not bound 1."o award the fund or othf'r thing in dispute wholly to him who has the legal title, but may so shape its decree as to do complete equity bet\veen the parties." C33 C.J. 467.) By the ordC'r under consideration the respondent Judge has not violated any positive legal provision, or abused its discretion, or jeopardized any substantial righC of any of the defendants, and In interfering with that order this Court has shown rigid paternalism not in accord with its powers of review and the spirit of a sound judicial system. VI I. CIVIL CODE; ADOPTION; STEP-FATHER MAY ADOPT STEP-CHILD IF' NO IMPEDIMENT EXIST; CASE AT BAR. -B. an American residing in the P.I., wants to adopt W. son of B's wife who is a divorcee. B and wife have a child. The Solicitor General maintains that B cannot adopt W under Art. icle 335 of the Civil Code, which states that those who have legitimate children cannot adopt!. The lower court held thai B could adopt under Article 33R, which states that a step-child may be adopted by the step-father or step-moiber. HELD: - -Article 338 should be understcod in the sense that a stepfather or step-mother may e.dopt a sCep-child if there is no impediment. If the step-father who adopts has a forced heir, the adoption is not conducive to peace and harmony in the f!l-mily, because the legi~mate child cannot look with favor at 4. ID.; ID.; ID. ; THE WOHD "MAY" USED JN ART. 838 IN. TERPRETED.-Arlicle 338 uses the word "may"; this word may be interpreted in i.11e impen:.tive sense, which imposes an obligation, or permissive, which confers a discretion; its interpretation de11ends on the inte11tion of the legisiator, an intention which may be deduced in relation with the whole law. <Case of Mario Guarifia, 24 J ur. Fil. 38.> lf it is obligatory, therefore, Article 335 is redundant. It is unfair to suppose that the legislature had included in the Code a. rule that is' useless or two rules which are contradictory. If one law is susceptible to various interpretation, the Code should adopt that which does not contradict the other rules, but that which supplements them. Therefore the word "may" in this case is interpreted to mean that which confers discretJon ; it permits, but does not oblige, the adoption of a step-child. R~conciling Article 335 wit.h 338, a stcp-mothllr or step-father who has no legitimat'e child may adopt " i;tep-child; but if they have, they cannot. Solicitor General J11a1~ R. Liwa9 and Solicitor Estrella Abad San. t.-,,s for appellant. J. de Guia for appellee. DECISION PABLO, M.: Normun H. Ball, ciudadanO americano y domiciliado en F ilipinas, habfa pedido la adopciOn de! menor George Willia.m York, Jr. que naciO en 29 de febrero de 1948. El Ministel'io Fiscal se opuso. Despues de la vista correspondicnte, el Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Manila decretO la adopciOn de dicho menor de ilcuerdo con el artfculo 338 del CodigO Civil de Filipina.s. Contra esta decisiOn, tal come ha sido enmendada, en 21 de octubre de 1951 apelO el Ministerio Fiscal. Los hechos son los siguientes: George William York, Jr. es hijo de George William York, Sr. y Sophie S. Farr, los cuales se divorciaron en 1944. DespuCs del decretO de divorcio, est.e menor continuO bajo el cuidado de su m:idre. George William York, Sr. ya esti casa.do con otra mujer y vive en San Francisco, California. El solicitante Norman H. Ball se casO en 5 de agosto de 1947 con la divorciada Sophie S. Fan y con la Cua] tiene una hija do does afios de edad. La fa.milia vive en la calle Balagtas No. 278 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL J unc 30, 1954. 168-D, Manila. La madre de George William dib su consentimiento a la adopciOn de su hijo por el so1icitante, el cual, segtin las pi-uebas, est8 en condiciones econcimicas para educa.r y mantener al El Procurador General contiende que el solicitante no puede adoptar al menor porque el articulo 335 del Codigo Civil de Fili. pinas dispone qu~ no pueden adoptar aquellos que tiElnen hijos legitimos. Dicho articulo dice asi: "ART. 335. The following cannot adopt: "{l) Those who have legitimate, legitimated, acknow. ledged natur:i.l children, or natural children by legal fiction; "l2) The guardian, with respect to the ward, beCcre the final approval of his accounts; "CS> A married person without the consent of the other spouse; "C4> Non-resident aliens; "(51 Resident a.liens with whose government the Repub.. lie of the Philippines has broken diplomatic relations; "(6) Any person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, when the penalty imposed was. six months' imprisonment or more." Codi~ !~:t d~s::::e:funda su decisiOn en el articulo 338 deJ mismo "ART. 338. The following may be adopted: "(l) The natural child, by the natural father or mothel'; "(2) Other illegitimat.'e children, by the father or mother; "C3> A step._child, by the step-father or step.rnother.n. En .apoyo de su in~rpretaciOn, cita el informe de la ComisiOn de Codigos clel tenor siguiente: "Adoption of a step.-child by a step. f~th~; o: step-mother is advisable. f~r it eases up a strange pituatto11. . E_ ste argumento es bueno s1 el o ell a no tiene hijo legitimo; pero St ti~~e, la adapcion de un hijastro no suaviza las fricciones en la fam1ha; la ,empeora por cl cvntrario, porquc el hercdero for. ~os~ no s~ ~ntirill felit con la ad~pciOn de su hermanastro; queaana perJudicado porque no gotaria de todo el culdado y amor de :~eJ::fae ~e~i~:· : ;e~:C~~!i.cip:i.ciOn en la herencia, si Ja tuviere, La a.d~.pciOn de George no puede, puea, mejorar las rel1tcioncs entre el h1Jo adoptivo y la hija legitima, La disposiciOn del artL cuJo ~-38 debe entcnderse en el sentido de que se puede adoptar a un .hiJastro por un padrasto o por una madraSUi. si no existe imped1mento algun~~ Si · el padra.sto que adopta ticne un heredero forzoso, la adopc1qn no puede producir paz y armonia en su familia, porque el hijo legitimo no puede ver con buenos ojos al hermanastrC" que~ .P~r haber sido :i.doptado, se convierte en su coheredero. La ~s1b1hdad de la a.do,Pcion de un hijastro depende de la no existenc1a de. herederos legitimos del adoptante. Cuando la ComisiOn dijo en su mforme que la :i.dopcion de un hijast'ro suavita las relaciones !~~~:rr~~ ;:~~~d~c:d~a ::n:c~! :~S:pc~:in.que ningun hijo Jeg{ti~o El ~r.ti'~ulO 174 del CodigO Civil espaiioJ dispone: "Se prohi"" la adopcion: 1.o x x x. 2.o A _los )lUC tengan desccndienbs le.qi. timos o lt!gitimados. etc." Razon de esta disposiciOn: "Tambien prohibe el CodigO la adopciOn a lo.:; que tengan descendientes Jeg{~::? P:~:gi!!~eardo:~li:~~~:n~~ :rt.lo:9,h~:: :e:i~~:le~u:e~e~n:;~:~ bido se tiene pornacido para todos los efectos que le sean favorables'. El fundamento de esta prohibiciOn es sencillo y evidentc tratandose de los que consideran que la adopciOn tiene por fin proporcionar consuclo al que no tiene hijos, pero no para nosot:ros que no vemos en a.quella obra de miscricordia, aunque muy piadosa y loable, la base suficiente de una instituciOn juridica. Nosotros en contrnmos legitimada dicha prohibiciOn, teniendo en cuenta Jos conflictos y diferencias que produciri.l ln cntrada dcl extrafio adop. tado en una socicda.d familiar quc cuenta ya con ot'ros individuos a quicnes prodigar los cuidados y atenciones a que cl adoptado ten. drili derccho.1' (2 Manresa 6.a Ed., 108.> El articulo 766 del Codigo de Pfflcidimiento Civil dispone asi: ''.De la adopciOn por un padrasto.-El h:i.bitante de las Islas Filipin:i.s, marido de una mujer que tuviere un menor habido de m:i.trimonio anterior, podra solicitar del Juzgado de Primera Inst!ancia de la provincia donde residiera., la autorizaciOn para adoptarlo y para cambiar su apellido, pero set& n(' cesario el consentimiento escrito de dicho menor, caso de que tuviere catorce aiios, y el de su madre si 110 padeciere de dcmcncia o embriague_r incurables, sustituyendole en el UJ. timo caso el tut:or legitimo, y si no lo hubiera, una persona discreta e idonea. nombrada por el juzgado actual'a como amigo de! menor." Esta ley es de origen amerlcano; .no prohibe expresamente )a ad op. ciOn de un hijastro por un padrasto que tiene hijo legitimo; al contrario, dispone que el padrasto puede solicitar la adopcion de un hijastro. El Codigo de Procedimienth Civil ha deroga.do el sistema de adopcion del Codigo Civil (In re adoption ot ,Emiliano Guzman. 40 O. G., 2083), doctrina co~firmada en Joaquin contra ~avarro y Castro en Intestate Estate of the Spouses Angela Joaquin y Joaqu[n Navarro, 46 0. G. <Supp. 1), 155. Para cambiar,esta dispG. siciOn del Codigo de Procedimiento que tiene hijo legitimo, adopcio'n que pucde producir grave!! trastornos dentro de la familia que crce en la herencia forzosa, la Comisio'n de CodigOs adoptO el articulo 174 de! Ccldigo Civil espaflol con ciertas cnmiendas, que es hoy el articulo 335 de! c0digo Civil de Filipinas. El articulo ~38 emplea. la palabra may; clicha palabra puede intcrpret~rse c~mo i.'!1perativ.a, que 1m~?ne un dcber, o p~rmisi:V~· que conf1erc <.hscrecion: su mterpreUlcion depende de la mtenc1on · del legisl:i.dor, int<-nciOn que pucde deducirsc de! ~onjunto de toda la ley ' Asunto de Mario Guarifia, 21 Jur. Fil., 38.) Si es obli. 1Iatoria, cntonccs es redundante cl articulo 335. Es injusto suponer quc el legislador hayn. incluido en el C0digo una db1posiciOn inUtil o dos disposicioncs contrarias. Si una ley es susceptible de varias interpretaciones, el tribunal debe adoptar aquella en que nc se contradigan sus varias disponsiciones sino que se complementtn entre si. Declaramos que la. palabra may esta usada en el sentido de quc confiere discreciOn: permite, pero no obliga I:?. adopciOn de un hijastro. Armonizando los articulos 835 y 338, el padrasto o la madrasta que no tienen hijo lcgitimo puedcn adoptar a un hijastro; pero r.i tienen, no pueden hacerlo. Como Herman Ball ticne una hija legitima, no puede adpotar a George William York, Jr. Se revoca la decisiOn aPelada. Paras, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayt>r, Re11es, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, J.J., conformes VII Thi! People of the Philippines, Plairitif/.Appel!ce vs. Felipe A . Livara, Defn1dant.Appellant, G. R. No. L-6200, April 20, 1954; Beng. zon, J. CIVIL COURTS AND COUH.TS-MARTIAL; CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. - The civil courts and courts-martial have concurrent jurisdiction over offenses committed by a. member of the Armed Forces in violation of military law and the public law, The first court to take Cognizance of the case does so to the exclusion of the other <Grafton v. U. S., 11 Phil. 776; Valdes v. Lucero, 42 O. G. No. 112845>. June 30, 1954 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL 279
pages: 278-279