Therkelsen v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case concerns an application for the adoption of a minor, Charles Joseph Blancaflor Weeks, who is the natural child of petitioner Erlinda G. Blancaflor. The child's father, Charles Joseph Week, is alleged to have abandoned both mother and child and returned to the United States. The petitioners, husband and wife, married on June 2, 1962, and the minor has been living with them since their marriage, with the petitioner husband treating the child as his own. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners filed an application for adoption in the Manila Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. This court denied the application. The petitioners subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioners-appellants are seeking review of the lower court's decision denying their adoption petition. They argue that the lower court erred in denying the adoption solely on the basis that the petitioner husband, a Danish subject, could not adopt a Filipino minor. They contend that under the Civil Code, alienage alone is not a disqualification for adoption, provided the alien is a resident and diplomatic relations with their country have not been severed. They assert that the lower court imposed an additional prerequisite not found in law, which would require the adoption to result in the minor acquiring the alien citizenship of the adopter, a condition not mandated by statute and outside the scope of civil law.
Issue(s)
Whether alienage alone disqualifies a foreigner from adopting a Filipino minor. Whether the adoption must result in the acquisition of the adopter's citizenship by the adopted Filipino minor.
Ruling
The decision of the Manila Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court denying the adoption is reversed. The court a quo is directed to allow the adoption sought.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether alienage alone disqualifies a foreigner from adopting a Filipino minor: The Court held that alienage alone does not disqualify a foreigner from adopting a Filipino minor, provided the conditions under Article 335 of the Civil Code are met. Article 335 only disqualifies aliens who are non-residents or whose governments have broken diplomatic relations with the Philippines. The petitioner husband, being a Danish subject with permanent residence and employed in the Philippines, did not fall under these disqualifications. The court a quo's imposition of an additional prerequisite beyond what the law requires was deemed erroneous. On whether the adoption must result in the acquisition of the adopter's citizenship by the adopted Filipino minor: The Court clarified that the criterion adopted by the court a quo, which required the adoption to result in the acquisition of the alien citizenship by the adopted Filipino minor, has no basis in law. The citizenship of the adopter is a political matter, not a civil one, and the Civil Code does not govern how foreign citizenship is acquired. The Court reiterated its stance in Ching Leng vs. Galang that the Civil Code's scope does not extend to determining the acquisition of foreign citizenship. The denial of adoption of an alien child to prevent circumvention of exclusion laws is distinct from the adoption of a Filipino minor by qualified alien parents, as the latter does not necessarily subvert public policy.
Main Doctrine
Alienage alone, in the absence of diplomatic relations breakdown or non-residency, does not disqualify a foreigner from adopting a Filipino minor under Philippine law. The law does not require that the adoption must result in the acquisition of the adopter's citizenship by the adopted.