Ellis vs. Republic

G.R. No.
L-16922 April 30, 1963 over the parties, but also over the res, which is the personal status of Baby Rose as
well as that of petitioners herein. Our Civil Code (Art. 15) adheres to the theory that
IN RE: ADOPTION OF CHILD BAPTIZED UNDER THE NAME OF ROSE, jurisdiction over the status of a natural person is determined by the latters' nationality.
MARVIN G. ELLIS and GLORIA C. ELLIS, petitioners-appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF Pursuant to this theory, we have jurisdiction over the status of Baby Rose, she being a
THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant. citizen of the Philippines, but not over the status of the petitioners, who are foreigners.
Under our political law, which is patterned after the Anglo-American legal system, we
have, likewise, adopted the latter's view to the effect that personal status, in general, is
Leonardo F. Lansangan for petitioners-appellees. determined by and/or subject to the jurisdiction of the domiciliary law (Restatement of
Office of the Solicitor General for oppositor-appellant. the Law of Conflict of Laws, p. 86; The Conflict of Laws by Beale, Vol. I, p. 305, Vol. II,
pp. 713-714). This, perhaps, is the reason why our Civil Code does not permit adoption
CONCEPCION, J.:chanrobles virtual law library by non-resident aliens, and we have consistently refused to recognize the validity of
foreign decrees of divorce - regardless of the grounds upon which the same are based -
Appeal taken by the Government from a decision of the Court of First Instance of involving citizens of the Philippines who are not bona fide residents of the forum, even
Pampanga granting the petition of Marvin G. Ellis and Gloria C. Ellis for the adoption of when our laws authorized absolute divorce in the Philippines (Ramirez v. Gmur, 42 Phil.
a Filipino baby girl named Rose.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library 855; Gonayeb v. Hashim, 30 Phil. 22; Cousine Hix v. Fleumer, 55 Phil. 851; Barretto
Gonzales v. Gonzales, 58 Phil. 67; Recto v. Harden, L-6897, Nov. 29,
1955)".chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner Marvin G. Ellis, a native of San Fransisco, California, is 28 years of age. On
September 3, 1949, he married Gloria G. Ellis in Banger, Maine, United States. Both
are citizens of the United States. Baby Rose was born on September 26, 1959, at the Inasmuch as petitioners herein are not domiciled in the Philippines - and, hence, non-
Caloocan Maternity Hospital. Four or five days later, the mother of Rose left her with the resident aliens - we cannot assume and exercise jurisdiction over the status, under
Heart of Mary Villa - an institution for unwed mothers and their babies - stating that she either the nationality theory or the domiciliary theory. In any event, whether the above -
(the mother) could not take of Rose without bringing disgrace upon her (the mother's quoted provision of said Art. 335 is predicated upon lack of jurisdiction over the res or
family.).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library merely affects the cause of action, we have no authority to grant the relief prayed for by
petitioners herein, and it has been so held in Caraballo v. Republic, L-15080 (April 25,
1962) and Katansik v. Republic L-15472 (June 30,
Being without issue, on November 22, 1959, Mr. and Mrs. Ellis filed a petition with the 1962).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Court of First Instance of Pampanga for the adoption of the aforementioned baby. At
the time of the hearing of the petition on January 14,1960, petitioner Marvin G. Ellis and
his wife had been in the Philippines for three (3) years, he being assigned thereto as WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and another one shall
staff sergeant in the United States Air Force Base, in Angeles, Pampanga where both be entered denying the petition in this case.
lived at that time. They had been in the Philippines before, or, to exact, in
1953.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The only issue in this appeal is whether, not being permanent residents in the
Philippines, petitioners are qualified to adopt Baby Rose. Article 335 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, provides that:
"The following cannot adopt:
x x x x x x x x xchanrobles virtual law library
(4) Non-resident aliens;".
xxx xxx xxx
This legal provisions is too clear to require interpretation. No matter how much we
sympathize with the plight of Baby Rose and with the good intentions of petitioners
herein, the law leaves us no choice but to apply its explicit terms, which unqualified
deny to petitioners the power to adopt anybody in the
Philippines.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
In this connection, it should be noted that this is a proceedings in rem, which no court
may entertain unless it has jurisdiction, not only over the subject matter of the case and

Ellis vs. Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ellis vs. Republic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ellis vs. Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

"The following cannot adopt:

x x x x x x x x xchanrobles virtual law library

(4) Non-resident aliens;".

You might also like