WHO MAY ADOPT

Republic v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 100835

Republic v. Toledano G.R. No. 94147
Republic v. Alarcon-Vergara G.R. No. 95551
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTION
In re: adoption of Michelle and Michael Lim G.R. No. 168992
Landingin v. Republic G.R. No. 164948 (2006)
Consents for adoption must be written and notarized.
Cang v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 105308
Department of Social Welfare and Development v. Belen A.M. No. RTJ961362 (1997)
Participation of the appropriate government instrumentality in performing the
necessary studies and precautions is important and is indispensable to assure the
childs welfare.
NATURE AND EFFECTS OF ADOPTION
Republic v. Hernandez G.R. No. 117209 (1996)
The change of surname of the adoptee as a result of the adoption and to
follow that of the adopter does not lawfully extend to or include the proper or given
name. The birth certificate, as it appears in the civil register, contains the official
name. It does not matter if the mother, with all intention to abandon it later, named
the child for the sake of naming it. If they really want to change the name, they
must institute another action under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
Republic v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 103695
In re: adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia G.R. No. 148311
Teotico v. Del Val G.R. No. L-18753
The relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter and
the adopted and does not extend to the relatives of the adopting parents or of the
adopted child except only as expressly provided for by law. Hence, no relationship is
created between the adopted and the collaterals of the adopting parents. As a
consequence, the adopted is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of the
adopter.
RESCISSION OF ADOPTION
Lahom v. Sibulo G.R. No

Other landmark cases

Tamargo v. CA (1992)
Where the petition for adoption was granted after the child had shot and
killed a girl, the Supreme Court did not consider that retroactive effect may be given
to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents

accruing at a time when adopting parents had no actual or physically custody over
the adopted child. Retroactive effect may perhaps be given to the granting of the
petition for adoption where such is essential to permit the accrual of some benefit
or advantage in favor of the adopted child. In the instant case, however, to hold that
parental authority had been retroactively lodged in the adopting parents so as to
burden them with liability for a tortuous act that they could not have foreseen and
which they could not have prevented would be unfair and unconscionable.
Lazatin v. Campos, (1979)
Adoption is a juridical Act, proceeding in rem. Because it is artificial, the
statutory requirements in order to prove it must be strictly carried out. Petition must
be announced in publications and only those proclaimed by the court are valid.
Adoption is never presumed.
Santos v. Aranzanso, (1966)
Validity of facts behind a final adoption decree cannot be collaterally attacked
without impinging on that courts jurisdiction.
Sayson v. CA. (1992)
Adopted children have a right to represent their adopters in successional
interests. Although an adopted child shall be deemed to be a legitimate child and
have the same rights as the latter, these rights do not include the right of
representation. The relationship created by the adoption is between only the
adopting parents and the adopted child. It does not extend to the blood relatives of
either party.