Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    Lazatin vs. Campos

    Uploaded by

    Ermelyn Jane Celindro
    The petitioner claimed that the respondent had adopted him based on the fact that he had lived with and been treated like a child by the respondent. However, the court ruled that no adoption had been proven. Only an adoption made through the proper legal procedures and documented by the court is valid. Secondary evidence of an adoption cannot be considered unless the original document is proven to have formerly existed and been lost or destroyed, which the petitioner failed to do.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lazatin vs. Campos

    Uploaded by

    Ermelyn Jane Celindro
    51 views1 page
    The petitioner claimed that the respondent had adopted him based on the fact that he had lived with and been treated like a child by the respondent. However, the court ruled that no adoption had been proven. Only an adoption made through the proper legal procedures and documented by the court is valid. Secondary evidence of an adoption cannot be considered unless the original document is proven to have formerly existed and been lost or destroyed, which the petitioner failed to do.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner claimed that the respondent had adopted him based on the fact that he had lived with and been treated like a child by the respondent. However, the court ruled that no adoption had been proven. Only an adoption made through the proper legal procedures and documented by the court is valid. Secondary evidence of an adoption cannot be considered unless the original document is proven to have formerly existed and been lost or destroyed, which the petitioner failed to do.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    51 views1 page

    Lazatin vs. Campos

    Uploaded by

    Ermelyn Jane Celindro
    The petitioner claimed that the respondent had adopted him based on the fact that he had lived with and been treated like a child by the respondent. However, the court ruled that no adoption had been proven. Only an adoption made through the proper legal procedures and documented by the court is valid. Secondary evidence of an adoption cannot be considered unless the original document is proven to have formerly existed and been lost or destroyed, which the petitioner failed to do.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    LAZATIN V CAMPOS

    Ruling:

    NO.

    Adoption is a juridical act, a proceeding which creates between two persons a relationship
    similar to that which results from legitimate paternity and filiation. Only an adoption made
    through the court, or in pursuance with the procedure laid down under Rule 99 of the Rules of
    Court is valid in this jurisdiction. The fact of adoption is never presumed, but must be
    affirmatively proved by the person claiming its existence.

    On the contrary, the absence of a record of adoption has been said to evolve a presumption of
    its non-existence. The absence of proof of such order of adoption by the court, as provided by
    the statute, cannot be substituted by parol evidence that a child has lived with a person, not his
    parent, and has been treated as a child to establish such adoption.

    Secondary evidence is nonetheless admissible where the records of adoption proceedings were
    actually lost or destroyed. But, prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the
    proponent must establish the former existence of the instrument.

    The correct order of proof is as follows: Existence; execution; loss; contents; although this order
    may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court.

    As earlier pointed out, petitioner failed to establish the former existence of the adoption paper
    and its subsequent loss or destruction. Secondary proof may only be introduced if it has first
    been established that such adoption paper really existed and was lost.

    You might also like