This is another interesting case of adoption because it results in a dual relationship between the adopter and the adopted: one is by nature while the other is by fiction of law. This is the case of Fely and her husband Larry.
Fely is one of the children of Francis and Francia. When she was already 32 years old and a practicing nurse, she married Larry, a lawyer and a businessman and established a conjugal home of their own. One year after their marriage, Fely’s mother Francia gave birth to another baby boy, whom they named Ed. Since Ed was a sickly child from birth, and because of his impairing health, her parents entrusted Ed to Fely and Larry especially because Fely was a nurse..
Fely and Larry took care and reared Ed for several years thereafter. As a result there developed between the couple and the child Ed, a deep and profound love for each other.
When Ed was already four years old, Fely and Larry decided to file a petition for his adoption. Ed’s parents Francis and Francia who were also the parents of Fely even testified that they have voluntarily given their consent to the adoption of their own son by the couple Fely and Larry and submitted their written consent and conformity to said adoption. They also declared that they fully understand the legal consequences of their child’s adoption by their daughter Fely and her husband Larry.
The trial court however dismissed Fely and Larry’s petition. The court said that the adoption will result in an incongruous situation where the minor Ed, a legitimate brother of Fely will also be her son. Was the trial court correct?
No. There is no provision in the law prohibiting relatives by blood or by affinity, from adopting one another. To say that adoption should not be allowed when the adopter and the adopted are related to each other, is to preclude adoption among relatives, no matter how far removed or in whatever degree that relationship might be. This is not the policy of the law.
The fact that the adoption in this case will result in dual relationship between the parties, that the adopted brother will also be the son of the adopting elder sister, should not prevent the adoption. One is by nature while the other is by fiction of law.
The relation established by the adoption is limited to the adopting parents and does not extend to their other relatives except as expressly provided by law. Thus the adopted child cannot be considered as a relative of the ascendants and collateral of the adopting parents, nor of the legitimate children which they may have after the adoption, except that the law imposes certain impediments to marriage by reason of adoption. Neither are the children of the adopted considered as descendants of the adopter.
The interest and welfare of the child to be adopted should be of paramount consideration. Adoption statutes being humane and salutary and designed to provide homes, care and education for unfortunate children, should be construed so as to encourage the adoption of such children by persons who can properly rear and educate them. (Santos Jr. etc vs. Republic of the Philippines, L-22523, September 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 379)
* * *
E-mail: attyjosesison@gna.com