Johnston vs. Republic of the Philippines

Under Article 341, paragraph 4 of the Civil Code, an adopted minor is entitled to the use of the adopter’s own surname, not the surname acquired by the adopter through marriage; where the adoption is made singly by a married woman without her husband joining as adopter, the child may not use the husband’s surname.

Isabel Valdes Johnston was married to Raymond Arthur Johnston and had no children. The minor was under the custody of the Hospicio de San Jose, an orphanage in Manila. Article 341 of the Civil Code governed adoption, providing that the adopted person has the same rights and duties as a legitimate child and is entitled to use the adopter’s surname, while Article 370, paragraph 1, allowed a married woman to use her husband’s surname. The dispute concerned which surname the adopted child should bear after the adoption was granted.

On June 24, 1960, Isabel Valdes Johnston filed a petition for the adoption of Ana Isabel Henriette Antonio Concepcion Georgiana, then 2 years and 10 months old and under the custody of the Hospicio de San Jose, an orphanage in Manila. The petition stated that Isabel was 48 years old, married to Raymond Arthur Johnston, residing at 12 San Lorenzo Drive, Makati, Rizal, and that the couple were childless. It also stated that the consent of the Mother Superior of the orphanage and of Isabel’s husband had been obtained.

Notice of the hearing was issued and duly published as required by law. After hearing, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision granting the petition. The lower court declared the child freed from all legal obligations and obedience and maintenance with respect to her natural parents and, to all legal intents and purposes, the child of the petitioner, with the corresponding change of surname to “Valdes,” the surname of the petitioner.

On October 24, 1960, petitioner filed a motion praying that the surname given to the minor be “Valdes Johnston” instead of “Valdes” only. The lower court denied the motion in its order dated October 31, 1960. Petitioner appealed from the decision and the order.

• Adopter’s Married Surname: Petitioner argued that because she was then using the surname of her husband by virtue of Article 370, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, and because she used the surname “Valdes Johnston” in filing the petition, testified under it, and was known by it to relatives, friends, and acquaintances, the lower court should have decreed that the adopted minor be allowed to bear that surname.
• Humiliation and Illegitimacy Impression: Petitioner maintained that the use of the surname “Valdes” by the adopted child would create the impression that the child was her illegitimate child begotten before marriage, a situation humiliating to both adopter and adopted.

• Adopter’s Own Surname: Respondent, through the Solicitor General, countered that while a married woman is permitted to add her husband’s surname, appellant’s surname remained “Valdes” and not “Johnston”; a married woman has a surname of her own to which her husband’s surname may be added if she so chooses.
• Confusion and Misleading the Public: Respondent argued that if the minor were permitted to use the surname “Valdes Johnston,” much confusion would result because the public would be misled into believing that she was adopted by appellant’s husband also, which was not true in this case.

• Surname of Adopted Child: Whether the adopted minor is entitled to use the surname “Valdes Johnston,” the surname used by the adopter by virtue of marriage, rather than “Valdes,” the adopter’s own surname.
• Effect of Husband’s Consent: Whether the consent of the adopter’s husband to the adoption by her individually entitles the adopted child to use the husband’s surname.

• Surname of Adopted Child: No. Under Article 341, paragraph 4 of the Civil Code, the adopted minor is entitled to the adopter’s own surname, not the surname acquired by marriage.
• Effect of Husband’s Consent: No. The husband’s consent to the adoption by his wife individually did not make him an adopting father or entitle the child to use his surname.

• Surname of Adopted Child: Article 341, paragraph 4 of the Civil Code entitles the adopted minor to the use of the adopter’s surname. This provision refers to the adopter’s own surname and not to the surname acquired by virtue of marriage. Petitioner’s real surname was “Valdes” and not “Johnston.” Because she made the adoption singly without the concurrence of her husband, and not as a married woman, her name as adopter was her maiden name. The adoption created a personal relationship between the adopter and the adopted, and the consent of Raymond Johnston to the adoption by Isabel Valdes individually did not have the effect of making him an adopting father so as to entitle the child to the use of Johnston’s own surname. Since adoption gives the person adopted the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter under Article 341, paragraph 1, much confusion would result if the minor were allowed to use the surname of the spouse who did not join in the adoption. To allow the minor to adopt the surname of the adopter’s husband would mislead the public into believing that he had also adopted the child, and in later questions of successional rights, the husband’s consent might be presented to prove that he had actually joined in the adoption. To forestall such confusing situations, the provision was applied strictly: an adopted child must use the surname of the adopter himself or herself, and not that which is acquired by marriage.
• Effect of Husband’s Consent: The husband’s consent to the adoption by his wife individually did not make him an adopting father. Adoption created a personal relationship between the adopter and the adopted; the husband’s consent did not convert him into a co-adopter. Consequently, the child could not use the husband’s surname, because doing so would falsely suggest that he had joined in the adoption and would create confusion, including with respect to future successional rights.

• Adopted Child’s Surname Under Article 341, Paragraph 4 — Under Article 341, paragraph 4 of the Civil Code, the adopted minor is entitled to use the adopter’s own surname, not the surname acquired by the adopter through marriage. The Court applied this rule to require the child to use “Valdes,” Isabel Valdes Johnston’s own surname, rather than “Valdes Johnston,” the surname she used by virtue of marriage.
• Adoption as a Personal Relationship — Adoption creates a personal relationship between the adopter and the adopted. The consent of the adopter’s spouse to an adoption made by the adopter individually does not make the spouse an adopting father or mother. Thus, the child could not use Raymond Johnston’s surname merely because he consented to the adoption by his wife.
• Strict Application to Avoid Confusion — The Civil Code provision on the adopted child’s surname is applied strictly to forestall confusion. Allowing the adopted minor to use the surname of the adopter’s spouse who did not join in the adoption would mislead the public into believing that the spouse had also adopted the child and could create confusion in future successional rights.

• “The provision of law (Art. 341, par. 4, Civil Code) which entitles the adopted minor to the use of the adopter's surname, refers to the adopter's own surname and not to her surname acquired by virtue of marriage.” — This is the ratio decidendi: the adopted child’s statutory right to the adopter’s surname is limited to the adopter’s own surname, not a surname acquired through marriage.
• “The adoption created a personal relationship between the adopter and the adopted, and the consent of Raymond Johnston, Isabel Valdes' husband, to the adoption by her individually, did not have the effect of making him an adopting father, so as to entitle the child to the use of Johnston's own surname.” — This defines the effect of the husband’s consent and explains why the child could not use the husband’s surname.
• “Since adoption gives the person adopted the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter (Art. 341, par. 1, Civil Code), much confusion would indeed result, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, if the minor child herein were allowed to use the surname of the spouse who did not join in the adoption.” — This states the confusion rationale underlying the Court’s strict construction of the surname provision.
• “It is to forestall befuddling situations pointed out above and other possible confusing situations that may arise in the future, that this Court is inclined to apply strictly the provision of the Civil Code to the effect that an adopted child use the surname of the adopter himself or herself, and not that which is acquired by marriage.” — This is the Court’s canonical formulation of the strict-application rule for the adopted child’s surname.

• Article 341, paragraph 4, Civil Code — The Court construed this provision as entitling the adopted minor to the adopter’s own surname, not the surname acquired by marriage. It was applied to require the child to use “Valdes,” because Isabel Valdes Johnston’s own surname was “Valdes.”
• Article 341, paragraph 1, Civil Code — The Court cited this provision, which gives the adopted person the same rights and duties as a legitimate child of the adopter, to explain why allowing the child to use the surname of the spouse who did not join in the adoption would create confusion, including in future successional rights.

Bengzon, C.J.; Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ. Padilla, J., took no part.