Bar Q and A #15

The following may inherit from Ramon:

  1. Michelle, as an adopted child of Ramon, will inherit as a legitimate child of As an adopted child, Michelle has all the rights of a legitimate child. (Sec 18, Domestic Adoption Law)

  2. Lia will inherit in representation of Although Lia is an illegitimate child, she is not barred by Articles 992, because her mother Anna is an illegitimate herself. She will represent Anna as regards Anna's legitime under Art. 902 and as regards Anna's intestate share under Art. 990.

The following may not inherit from Ramon:

  1. Shelly, being an adopted child, she cannot represent This is because adoption creates a personal legal relation only between the adopter and the adopted. The law on representation requires the representative to be a legal heir of the person he is representing and also of the person from whom the person being represented was supposed to inherit. While Shelly is a legal heir of Cherry, Shelly is not a legal heir of Ramon. Adoption created a purely personal legal relation only between Cherry and Shelly.

  2. Hans and Gretel are barred from inheriting from Ramon under 992. Being illegitimate children, they cannot inherit ab intestato from Ramon.

No, there is no legal obstacle to the legal adoption of Amy by Andrew. While a person of age may not be adopted, Amy falls within two exceptions: (1) she is an illegitimate child and she is being adopted by her illegitimate father to improve her status; and (2) even on the assumption that she is not an illegitimate child of Andrew, she may still be adopted, although of legal age, because she has been consistently considered and treated by the adopter as his own child since minority. In fact, she has been living with him until now.

There is a legal obstacle to the adoption of Sandy by Andrew and Elena. Andrew and Elena cannot adopt jointly because they are not married.

a) It depends on the stage of the proceedings when Rafael died. If he died after all the requirements under the law have been complied with and the case is already submitted for resolution, the court may grant the petition and issue a decree of adoption despite the death of the adopter. (Sec. 13, RA 8552) Otherwise, the death of the petitioner shall have the effect terminating the proceedings.

b) No, if it was Dolly who died, the case should be dismissed. Her death terminates the proceedings. (Art. 13, RA 8552)

A. The consent of the 14-year-old legitimate child, of the 10-year-old illegitimate child and of the biological mother of the illegitimate child are needed for the adoption. (Sec. 7 and 9, RA 8552) The consent of Lea is no longer required because there was already a final decree of legal separation.

B. Yes, he can still adopt his illegitimate child but with the consent of his spouse, of his 14- year-old legitimate child, of the illegitimate child, and of the biological mother of the illegitimate child. (Sec. 7 and 9, RA 8552)

Under RA 8043, establishing the rules for inter- country adoption of Filipino children, the spouses may file an application to adopt a Filipino child with the Inter-country Adoption Board (ICAB) after they have been determined eligible and fit to adopt by the State Welfare Agency or a licensed adoption agency in Canada. The Canadian agency will forward the required supporting documents to the ICAB for matching with a Filipino child. The spouses, after filing a petition with the ICAB, shall be issued the Placement Authority and when all the travel documents of the child who is declared legally eligible for adoption as determined by the ICAB, are ready the adoptive parents or any one of them shall personally fetch the child in the Philippines for adoption in the court of the foreigner’s country.

1) The rationale of the provision is that a child below 7 years old needs the love and care which only its mother can give. The welfare of the child is given the highest priority and the interest of the child prevails over procedural rules.
2) The following have been considered as “compelling reasons” to deprive a mother of custody:

a. Neglect,
b. Abandonment,
c. Unemployment,
d. Immorality (Espiritu v. CA, 242 SCRA 362 [1995]),
e. Alcoholism,
f. Drug addiction,
g. Maltreatment,
h. Insanity,
i. Highly communicable serious disease,
j. Grave physical handicap,
k. Serious and credible threat by the child to ham himself if separated from his mother. (Luna v. CA 137 SCRA 7 [1985])

In substitute parental authority, the parents lose their parental authority in favor of the substitute who acquires it to the exclusion of the parents. In special parental authority, the parents or anyone exercising parental authority does not lose parental authority. Those who are charged with special parental authority exercise such authority only during the time that the child is in their custody or supervision.

Substitute parental authority displaces parental authority while special parental authority concurs with parental authority.

The school, its administrators, and teachers have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody (Art.218, FC). They are principally and solidarily liable for the damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor unless they exercised the proper diligence required under the circumstances. (Art. 219, FC) In the problem, the TEACHER  and the  SCHOOL  AUTHORITIES  are

liable for the blindness of the victim, because the student who causes it was under their special parental authority and they were negligent. They were negligent because they were chatting in the corridor during the class period when the stabbing incident occurred. The incident could have been prevented had the teacher been inside the classroom at that time. The guilty boy’s PARENTS are subsidiarily liable under Article 219 of the Family Code.