Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

Sometime in May, 1967, a child, less than a week old (only 3 days old) 7 was given to petitioners Robin Francis Radley Duncan and his wife Maria Lucy Christensen, for them to adopt, by Atty. Corazon de Leon Velasquez. The child was later on baptized as Colin Berry Christensen Duncan with the aforementioned espouses appearing in the records of said baptism as the parents of said child. Atty. Velasquez, on the other hand, received the infant from its unwed mother who told Atty. Velasquez to look for suitable couple who would adopt the child and instructed the lawyer to never reveal her (the mother’s) identity because she wanted to get married and did not want to destroy her future.

 

In the petition for adoption, Atty. Velasquez as the child’s de facto guardian or loco parentis gave the written consent required by law. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the consent given is improper and falls short of the express requirement of Article 340 of the Civil Code that the consent must be given by the parents, guardian or person in charge of the child to be adopted.

 

The trial court in its decision had sought refuge in the ancient Roman legal maxim "Dura lex sed lex" to cleanse its hands of the hard and harsh decision it rendered. While this old adage generally finds apt application in many other legal cases, in adoption of children, however, this should be softened so as to apply the law with less severity and with compassion and humane understanding, for adoption is more for the benefit of unfortunate children, particularly those born out of wedlock, than for those born with a silver spoon in their mouths. All efforts or acts designed to provide homes, love, care and education for unfortunate children, who otherwise may grow from cynical street urchins to hardened criminal offenders and become serious social problems, should be given the widest attitude of sympathy, encouragement and assistance. The law is not, and should not be made, an instrument to impede the achievement of a salutary humane policy. As often as is legally and lawfully possible, their texts and intendments should be construed so as to give all the chances for human life to exist — with a modicum promise of a useful and constructive existence.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the person who gave the consent  (who is Atty. Velasquez) is the proper person required by law to give such consent.

 

HELD:

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal order holding that the child’s unidentified mother can be declared as having abandoned the child so that there is no more legal need to require her written consent; and that the consent given by the de facto guardian who exercised patripotestas over abandoned child was sufficient. Also, adoption is more for the benefit of unfortunate children particularly those born out of wedlock, than for those with silver spoon in their mouths. Lastly, law is not, and should not be made, an instrument to impede the achievement of a salutory humane policy.

 

Therefore, appealed decision under review annulled, and the minor declared as the adopted child and heir of petitioners.