Republic v. Miller
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the adoption of a minor, Michael Magno Madayag, by the respondent spouses, Claude A. Miller and Jumrus S. Miller. The respondent spouses, both American citizens, are childless and have been residing in the Philippines since 1985. The minor's natural parents, facing poverty and concerned for their son's future, executed irrevocable affidavits consenting to the adoption. The Department of Social Welfare and Development recommended the approval of the adoption petition, finding the respondents fit and the adoption to be in the minor's best interest. 2. Procedural History: The respondent spouses filed a petition for adoption with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Angeles City, on July 29, 1988. The trial court granted the petition in a decision dated May 12, 1989, declaring the minor adopted and changing his surname to Miller. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, finding that the case raised only questions of law, certified the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and treated it as a petition for review on certiorari. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, as petitioner, is appealing the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's grant of adoption. The core legal issue presented is whether the court can allow aliens to adopt a Filipino child under the provisions of the Child and Youth Welfare Code (Presidential Decree No. 603), which was in effect when the petition was filed on July 29, 1988, despite the subsequent enactment of the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209) on August 3, 1988, which prohibits aliens from adopting Filipino children. The petitioner argues that the Family Code should govern, while the respondents contend that their right to adopt vested under the prior law.
Issue(s)
Whether the court may allow aliens to adopt a Filipino child despite the prohibition under the Family Code, effective August 3, 1988, when the petition for adoption was filed on July 29, 1988, under the provision of the Child and Youth Welfare Code which allowed aliens to adopt. Whether the enactment of the Family Code impairs the right of respondents who are aliens to adopt a Filipino child.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court granting the petition for adoption. The Court held that the respondents, as aliens, could adopt the Filipino child under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, which was in force at the time of the filing of the petition, and that their right to do so had become vested and could not be impaired by the subsequent enactment of the Family Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether aliens may adopt a Filipino child despite the prohibition under the Family Code: The Court ruled in the affirmative. The petition for adoption was filed on July 29, 1988, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988. At the time of filing, the Child and Youth Welfare Code was the governing law, which permitted aliens to adopt Filipino children. The Court reiterated its established jurisprudence that an alien qualified to adopt under the Child and Youth Welfare Code acquired a vested right which could not be affected by the subsequent enactment of a new law disqualifying them. This vested right is protected against arbitrary State action and represents an innately just and imperative right that cannot be denied. Therefore, the respondents' right to proceed with their adoption petition was governed by the law in force at the time of its filing. On the issue of whether the enactment of the Family Code impairs the right of respondents: The Court held that the enactment of the Family Code did not impair the respondents' right to adopt. The Court explained that jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. Once jurisdiction attaches, it cannot be ousted by subsequent events. In this case, the court acquired jurisdiction over the adoption petition when it was filed under the Child and Youth Welfare Code. Consequently, the subsequent enactment of the Family Code, which imposed stricter rules on alien adoption, did not divest the court of its jurisdiction or invalidate the vested right acquired by the respondents. The adoption statutes are designed to promote the welfare of the child, and every reasonable intendment should be sustained to fulfill these noble objectives.
Main Doctrine
An alien who filed a petition for adoption before the effectivity of the Family Code, although denied the right to adopt under Art. 184 of said Code, may continue with his petition under the law prevailing before the Family Code, as the right has become vested at the time of filing of the petition for adoption and shall be governed by the law then in force.