321815470.docx

IN RE JOHNSTON G.R. No. L-18284 April 30 1963 petitioners Isabel Valdes Johnston respondents Republic of the Philippines

Labrador

Hermosisima

summary Isabel Valdes Johnston filed a petition with the CFI to adopt Ana Isabel Henriette….., with her husband’s consent. While the lower court granted the petition, it gave the adopted child the surname of Valdes, thus Isabel filed a motion to have the child use the surname Johnston, which was denied. SC agreed with the lower court. CC entitles the adopted minor to use the adopter’s surname, the adopter’s surname. Since Isabel singly adopted the kid, without the concurrence of her husband, then her maiden name should be her adopted name. Mere consent of the husband did not have the effect of making him the adopting father. To make it so would cause confusion in the public making them think that he also adopted the child and would also cause confusion in successional rights.

facts of the case -

-

-

On June 24 1960, Isabel Valdes Johnston (48 y.o., married to Raymund Johnston, Filipino, childless) filed a petition for the adoption of one Ana Isabel Henriette Antonio Concepcion Georgiana, then under the custody of Hospicio de San Jose, an orphanage in Manila. The consent of the mother superior of the orphanage and Johnston’s husband was obtained Notices were issued and hearings were held. The lower court granted Jonston’s petition. Johnston then filed a motion on October 24 1960 praying that he surname given to the adopted child be Valdes Johnston instead of Valdes only. Motion was denied by the lower court. She argues that she is using the surname of her husbad by virtue of Article 370, par. 1 of the Civil Code. Because it is the surname she used in filing for adoption, then obviously it should be the surname given to her adopted child. Using Valdes will give the impression that the child was illegitimate a situation humiliating to adopter and adopted.

issue What should be the surname of the child? Valdes

Ratio -

-

-

Article 341(4) of the Civil Code which entitles the adopted minor to use the adopter’s surname, refers to the adopter’s surname and not to her surname acquired by virtue of marriage. Petitioner’s real surname is Valdes, not Johnston, and since she made the adoption singly without the concurrence of her husband, and not as a married woman, then her maiden name should be her adopter name. The adoption created a personal relationship between adopter and adopted, but the consent of Raymund to her individual adoption, did not have the effect of making him an adopting father, to entitle the child to use his surname. Since adoption gives the adoptee the same rights and duties as a legitimate child of the adopter, confusion would result if the minor children were allowed to use the surname of the spouse who didn’t join the adoption. To allow the minor to use Raymund’s surname would also lead the public that Ramund adopted her as well. Later, when questions of successional rights arise, the husband’s consent might be presented to prove that he had actually joined in the adoption.

1