The absolute prohibition in Article 335(4) of the New Civil Code, which states that non-resident aliens "cannot adopt," is a mandatory provision that disqualifies a non-resident alien from adopting in the Philippines, even if he is the step-father of the child to be adopted.

Gilbert R. Brehm, an American citizen serving in the U.S. Navy and temporarily assigned at Subic Bay, married Ester Mira, a Filipina citizen. Ester had a daughter, Elizabeth, from a previous relationship with another American who had left the country. After their marriage, the couple and the child resided in Manila, with Gilbert providing care and support. To formalize their family unit and give the child a legitimate status, the spouses filed a joint petition to adopt Elizabeth.

• Gilbert R. Brehm, an American citizen, was serving in the U.S. Navy with a temporary assignment at Subic Bay.
• In 1958, he married Ester Mira, a Filipina citizen, who had a daughter named Elizabeth from a previous relationship.
• The couple established their residence in Intramuros, Manila, and Elizabeth lived under their care and support.
• In 1959, the spouses filed a joint petition to adopt Elizabeth to promote her well-being and give her a legitimate status.
• During the proceedings, Gilbert Brehm testified that his residence in the Philippines was temporary and tied to his tour of duty with the U.S. Navy.

• Petitioners argued that Article 335 of the New Civil Code, which disqualifies non-resident aliens, does not apply because it is intended for adoptions that create a new relationship, not for cases where a relationship of affinity (step-father and step-child) already exists.
• They contended that Article 338 of the New Civil Code expressly authorizes the adoption of a step-child by a step-father, which directly applies to Gilbert Brehm.
• They claimed that despite his temporary assignment, Brehm's establishment of a home in Manila and his declared intention to reside permanently in the Philippines after his service should satisfy the residency requirement.

• The Republic of the Philippines argued that Gilbert R. Brehm is a non-resident alien because his stay is solely for his tour of duty with the U.S. Navy.
• As a non-resident alien, Brehm is explicitly disqualified from adopting under the mandatory provision of Article 335(4) of the New Civil Code.
• The respondent asserted that because Brehm is a non-resident alien, the court lacks jurisdiction over him for the purpose of an adoption proceeding.

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a non-resident alien who is also the step-father of the minor to be adopted is qualified to adopt under Philippine law.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court denied the petition of Gilbert R. Brehm. The Court ruled that the prohibition in Article 335(4) of the New Civil Code against non-resident aliens adopting is mandatory and absolute. The provision is couched in negative terms ("cannot adopt"), which signifies a positive prohibition without exception. In contrast, Article 338, which lists who "may be adopted," is merely directory. A directory provision cannot prevail over a mandatory one. Therefore, Brehm's status as a non-resident alien disqualifies him from adopting, notwithstanding his relationship as a step-father to the child. The Court reasoned that this prohibition is a safeguard for the adopted minor's welfare, preventing the child from being removed from the country and placed beyond the protection of Philippine laws.

• Statutory Construction (Mandatory vs. Directory Provisions) — The Court held that a statutory provision using negative terms of prohibition, such as "cannot adopt" in Article 335, is mandatory and absolute. In contrast, a provision using permissive terms, such as "may be adopted" in Article 338, is merely directory. In case of conflict, the mandatory provision must prevail over the directory one.
• Welfare of the Child (Parens Patriae) — The Court explained that the legal prohibition against non-resident aliens adopting is rooted in the state's duty to protect the welfare of the child. This rule ensures that an adopted minor remains within the jurisdiction of Philippine courts and under the protection of its laws, which could be compromised if a non-resident adopter takes the child out of the country.

• "This legal provision is too clear to require interpretation. No matter how much we may sympathize with the plight of Baby Rose and with the good intentions of petitioners herein, the law leaves us no choice but to apply its explicit terms, which unqualifiedly deny to petitioners the power to adopt anybody in the Philippines (Ellis and Ellis vs. Republic, L-16922, April 30, 1963)."
• "We should construe, however, Article 338 in connection with Article 335. Art. 335 clearly states that 'The fol- lowing cannot adopt: * * * (4). Non-resident aliens'. It is, therefore, mandatory... On the other hand, Art. 338, provides 'the following may be adopted: (3) a step-child, by the step-father or step-mother', which is merely directory, and which can only be given operation if the same does not conflict with the mandatory provisions of Art. 335."

• Ellis and Ellis vs. Republic — Cited to affirm that the prohibition in Article 335 against non-resident aliens adopting is clear, explicit, and allows for no judicial interpretation to the contrary.
• Caraballo vs. Republic — Referenced to explain the rationale behind the prohibition: to protect the adopted minor from being removed from the Philippines and placed beyond the reach and protection of the country's laws.
• S/Sgt. Katancik vs. Republic — Cited along with Caraballo to reinforce the legal reasoning for disqualifying non-resident aliens from adopting.
• Ball vs. Rep. and McGee vs. Rep. — Cited as precedents where the Court had previously limited the right of a step-father to adopt, demonstrating that the ability to adopt under Article 338 is not absolute and is subject to other legal prohibitions.

• Article 335(4), New Civil Code — This is the central provision applied by the Court, which explicitly states that non-resident aliens "cannot adopt." The Court interpreted this as a mandatory and absolute prohibition.
• Article 338(3), New Civil Code — This provision, which states that a step-child "may be adopted" by a step-father, was invoked by the petitioners. The Court ruled it was merely directory and subordinate to the prohibition in Article 335.
• Section 2, Rule 100, Rules of Court — This rule was cited by the Republic in its opposition to the adoption, likely concerning the residency requirements for petitioners in adoption cases.