Marcaida vs. Aglubat

An adoption created under the law of a foreign country is entitled to registration in the corresponding civil register of the Philippines, although the effects of such adoption are governed by Philippine law.

Maria Garnier Garreau, an 84-year-old resident of Madrid, Spain, sought to adopt Josefina Juana de Dios Ramirez Marcaida, a 55-year-old Philippine citizen also residing in Madrid. Philippine law establishes a civil register for adoptions and, at the time, required adoption to be effected through judicial proceedings. Spanish law, under Article 177 of its Civil Code, required a notarial adoption document after judicial approval and its inscription in the Civil Registry.

Prior to October 21, 1958, proceedings for adoption were started before the Court of First Instance of Madrid, Spain, by Maria Garnier Garreau, then 84 years of age, adopting Josefina Juana de Dios Ramirez Marcaida, 55 years, a citizen of the Philippines. Both were residents of Madrid, Spain.

On October 21, 1958, the Madrid court granted the application for adoption and gave the necessary judicial authority, once the judgment became final, to execute the corresponding adoption document "con arreglo al articulo 177 del Codigo Civil." The adoption document was necessary because Article 177 of the Civil Code of Spain provided that "[a]probada definitivamente la adopcion por el Juez, se otorgara escritura, expresando en ella las condiciones con que se haya hecho, y se inscribira en el Registro Civil correspondiente."

In compliance, on November 29, 1958, the notarial document of adoption — which embodied the court order of adoption — was executed before Notary Public Braulio Velasco Carrasquedo of Madrid, and in that document Maria Garnier Garreau instituted petitioner as "unica y universal heredera de todos sus bienes, derechos y acciones, presentes y futuros." The escritura de adopcion was authenticated by Emilio S. Martinez, Philippine Vice Consul at the Philippine Embassy in Madrid, who issued the corresponding certificate of authentication.

The document of adoption was filed in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila on January 15, 1959. The Registrar refused to register it upon the ground that under Philippine law adoption can only be had through judicial proceeding, and since the notarial document of adoption is not a judicial proceeding, it is not entitled to registration. Failing in her move to reconsider, petitioner went to the Court of First Instance of Manila on mandamus.

• Registrability of the Authenticated Escritura: Petitioner argued, in her lone assignment of error, that the lower court erred in declaring the escritura de adopcion authenticated by the Philippine Vice Consul in Madrid as not registrable in the Philippines.

• Judicial Adoption and Registration: Respondent countered that the case does not come within Article 409 of the Civil Code and Section 11 of Act 3753, which refer to adoptions effected in the Philippines, and that only adoptions obtained through a judgment rendered by a Philippine court are registrable; the notarial document is not a judicial proceeding and is therefore not entitled to registration.

• Registrability of a Foreign Adoption: Whether an adoption created under the law of a foreign country through a notarial deed authorized by a foreign court is entitled to registration in the corresponding civil register of the Philippines.

• Registrability of a Foreign Adoption: Yes. An adoption created under the law of a foreign country is entitled to registration in the corresponding civil register of the Philippines, although the effects of such adoption are governed by Philippine law.

• Registrability of a Foreign Adoption: Act 3753, Section 1(g), establishes a civil register and requires entry of adoptions; Article 407 of the Civil Code commands that acts, events and judicial decrees concerning civil status be recorded, and Article 408 lists adoptions among the entries. The word "shall" is compulsory. Article 409 of the Civil Code and Section 11 of Act 3753, which speak of the clerk of the court issuing the adoption decree and of the civil registrar of the municipality where the court is functioning, refer to adoptions effected in the Philippines and were incorporated to implement the law requiring judicial proceedings for adoption. They do not limit registration to adoptions granted by Philippine courts; such a limitation is for Congress to impose, and the SC cannot carve out a prohibition where the law does not state one. Articles 407 and 408 therefore make the disputed document registrable. No prejudice to the State, the adoptee, or any other person is suggested, and the validity of the adoption is not under attack; Article 15 of the Civil Code safeguards the rights of the State, the adoptee, and interested persons. Private international law also supports recognition: the status of adoption created by the law of a State having jurisdiction to create it will be given the same effect in another state as the latter gives to the status of adoption created by its own law, except where public policy or the interests of its inhabitants forbid enforcement and demand the lex fori. Article 15 makes the exercise of incidents to foreign adoption subject to local law. The foreign adoption is thus registrable, but its effects are governed by Philippine law.

• Registrability of foreign adoption — An adoption created under the law of a foreign country is entitled to registration in the corresponding civil register of the Philippines. The SC applied this to the Madrid adoption despite the absence of a Philippine judicial decree.
• Effects of foreign adoption governed by Philippine law — Recognition of the foreign adoption does not mean that its effects are governed by foreign law; the effects are governed by Philippine law. The SC applied Article 15 of the Civil Code.
• Recognition of foreign status under private international law — The status of adoption created by the law of a State having jurisdiction will be given the same effect in another state as the latter gives to the status of adoption created by its own law, except where public policy or the interests of the inhabitants forbid enforcement and demand the lex fori. The SC used this principle to support registration.
• Civil registry law does not impliedly exclude foreign adoptions — The provisions on the clerk of court's duty to register adoption decrees refer to adoptions effected in the Philippines and do not prohibit registration of foreign adoptions; any limitation must come from Congress. The SC applied this to reject the registrar's refusal.

• "We hold that an adoption created under the law of a foreign country is entitled to registration in the corresponding civil register of the Philippines. It is to be understood, however, that the effects of such adoption shall be governed by the laws of this country." — The SC states the rule on registrability and limits the effects of the foreign adoption to Philippine law.
• "Limitation of registration of adoptions to those granted by Philippine courts is a misconception which a broader view allows us now to correct. For, if registration is to be narrowed down to local adoptions, it is the function of Congress, not of this Court, to spell out such limitation. We cannot carve out a prohibition where the law does not so state." — The SC rejects the trial court's and Solicitor General's reading that only Philippine court adoptions are registrable.
• "This rests on the principle that the status of adoption, created by the law of a State having jurisdiction to create it, will be given the same effect in another state as is given by the latter state to the status of adoption when created by its own law." — The SC grounds recognition of the foreign adoption in private international law.

• Section 1(g), Act 3753 — Establishes a civil register and requires entry of adoptions; applied to hold that adoption documents, including foreign-created ones, must be recorded.
• Article 407, Civil Code — Commands that acts, events and judicial decrees concerning civil status be recorded in the civil register; applied as basis for registering the escritura.
• Article 408, Civil Code — Lists adoptions among the matters to be entered in the civil register; applied to the foreign adoption.
• Article 409, Civil Code — Requires the clerk of the court issuing an adoption decree to send a copy to the civil registry where the court is functioning; the SC held it refers to adoptions effected in the Philippines and does not bar registration of foreign adoptions.
• Section 11, Act 3753 — Imposes on clerks of court the duty to have adoption decrees registered; the SC held it refers to adoptions in the Philippines and does not limit registration to Philippine court decrees.
• Article 15, Civil Code — Makes laws on family rights, duties, status, condition and legal capacity binding on Filipino citizens even abroad; applied to safeguard the rights of the State and adoptee and to subject the effects of the foreign adoption to Philippine law.
• Article 177, Spanish Civil Code — Requires a notarial adoption document after final judicial approval and inscription in the Civil Registry; applied as the foreign law under which the Madrid adoption was executed.
• Section 25, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Cited in the footnote as basis for the authentication of the escritura by the Philippine Vice Consul.
• Rule 99, Rules of Court, and Chapter V, Title XI, Book J, Civil Code — Cited as the law requiring judicial proceedings for adoption, which Article 409 and Section 11 of Act 3753 were meant to implement.