Ramirez v. Guzman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Petronilo Ramirez and Anacleta Camandre filed a petition for the adoption of Emiliano Guzman, who was of age and the natural son of Petronilo Ramirez with another woman. Procedural History: The lower court denied the petition, ruling that a person of age cannot be legally adopted under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Petition: The petitioners appealed the order of denial, stating that they were childless, had raised the adoptee until he finished his studies, and that the adoptee and his natural mother consented to the adoption.
Issue(s)
Whether a person of age can be legally adopted under the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on adoption impliedly repealed the provisions of the Civil Code on the same subject.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of denial, holding that a person of age cannot be adopted under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a person of age can be legally adopted under the Code of Civil Procedure: The Court ruled in the negative. The applicable law was the Code of Civil Procedure, as the petition was filed before the new Rules of Court took effect. Sections 765 to 769 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically refer to a 'minor' as the subject of adoption proceedings. The principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius dictates that the express mention of 'minor' excludes the adoption of adults, in the absence of any contrary provisions. Therefore, the lower court correctly ruled that a person of age cannot be adopted under these provisions. On the issue of whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on adoption impliedly repealed the provisions of the Civil Code on the same subject: The Court held that the Code of Civil Procedure, in Chapter XLI, presented a complete enactment on the subject of adoption. When a later statute covers the whole subject matter of an earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it operates as a repeal of the earlier act. The Court cited Posadas v. National City Bank of New York and People v. Thornton to support the principle that a new statute intended to be a complete revision of a subject matter implies that whatever is excluded is discarded. Thus, the comprehensive nature of Chapter XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure on adoption led to the implied repeal of any conflicting provisions in the Civil Code that might have allowed the adoption of adults.
Main Doctrine
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a person of age cannot be adopted, as the term 'minor' used in the relevant provisions excludes adults in the absence of specific provisions to the contrary. The Code of Civil Procedure, being a complete enactment on adoption, implicitly repealed prior provisions of the Civil Code on the same subject that allowed the adoption of adults.