G.R. No. 47790 - JUNE 1941 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 47790June 30, 1941 In re: Emiliano Guzman G.R. No. 47768June 30, 1941 Northern Luzon Transportation, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. 47663June 30, 1941 Julin Go vs. El Banco Nacional Filipino G.R. No. 47637June 30, 1941 Jose Vistan vs. El Arzobispo Catolico Romano de Manila G.R. No. 47446June 30, 1941 Jose P. Bantug vs. Mamerto Roxas, et al. G.R. No. 47342June 30, 1941 Hilario C. Rodriguez vs. Ramon Echevarria G.R. No. 47966June 28, 1941 Lope Atienza vs. Maximino Castillo, et al. G.R. No. 47586June 28, 1941 Lim Bonfing y Hermanos, Inc. vs. Teodorico Rodriguez G.R. No. 47424June 28, 1941 El Banco Nacional Filipino vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. G.R. No. 47269June 28, 1941 Kuan Low & Company vs. El Administrador de Aduanas G.R. No. 47179June 28, 1941 Philippine Association of Mechanical and Electrical Engineers vs. M. Jesus Cuenco, et al. G.R. No. 48004June 27, 1941 Carlos Doronilla vs. Dolores Vasquez de Arroyo, et al. G.R. No. 47971June 27, 1941 Intestate Estate of Julio Magbanua. Mariano Magbanua, et al. vs. Manuel A. Akol, et al. G.R. No. 47955 and 47993June 27, 1941 Mariano B. Arroyo, et al. vs. Arsenio Dizon G.R. No. 47931June 27, 1941 In re:Eleuterio Pilapil. Adriano Mendoza vs. Calixto Pilapil, et al. G.R. No. 47888June 27, 1941 Manuel Villarama vs. Juanito Manlusoc G.R. No. 47731June 27, 1941 Quintina R. Sabado vs. Leoncia Fernandez G.R. No. 47701June 27, 1941 Mentholatum Co., Inc., et al. vs. Anacleto Mangaliman, et al. G.R. No. 47641June 27, 1941 Josefa Bundalan, et al. vs. Juan de Vera, et al. G.R. No. 47517June 27, 1941 Idonah Slade Perkins vs. Mamerto Roxas, et al. G.R. No. 47501June 27, 1941 Felix B. Bautista, et al. vs. Gabriel Lasam, et al. G.R. No. 47465June 27, 1941 Vicente Diaz vs. Popular Labor Union of Caibiran G.R. No. 47411June 27, 1941 J.A. Wolfson vs. Manila Stock Exchange G.R. No. 47409June 27, 1941 Angel P. Miguel vs. Arsenio P. Dizon, et al. G.R. No. 47380June 27, 1941 Zacarias de Sadueste vs. Municipality of Surigao G.R. No. 47354June 27, 1941 El Obispo Catolico Romano de Nueva Segovia vs. El Municipio de Santa Catalina G.R. No. 47338June 27, 1941 Francisco Egmidio vs. Leon Regalado, et al. G.R. No. 47226June 27, 1941 Pedro de Jesus vs. Guan Bee Co., Inc. G.R. No. 47189June 27, 1941 A.L. Ammen Transportation Company, Inc. vs. La Comision de Servicios Publicos G.R. No. 47058June 27, 1941 Philippine Railway Co. vs. Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. G.R. No. 46966June 24, 1941 Paula Mercado vs. Chung Liu & Company G.R. No. 48100June 20, 1941 Florencio Pelobello vs. Gregorio Palatino G.R. No. 47819June 20, 1941 Leonardo Guison vs. La Ciudad de Manila G.R. No. 47797June 20, 1941 Josefa Lanot, et al. vs. Eduviges Librada G.R. No. 47726June 20, 1941 Monte de Piedad, et al. vs. Victorino Dangoy G.R. No. 47683June 20, 1941 El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas vs. Consolacion M. Gomez, et al. G.R. No. 47601June 20, 1941 Eduardo C. Guico vs. Nicasio San Pedro, et al. G.R. No. 47588June 20, 1941 Jose L. Liwanag vs. Tolaram Menghraj, et al. G.R. No. 47538June 20, 1941 Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. Arco Amusement Company G.R. No. 47972June 17, 1941 A.K. Spielberger vs. L.R. Nielson, et al. G.R. No. 47889June 17, 1941 In re: Leoncia Filomena Jardin. Andres Jardin, et al. vs. Severina Villamayor G.R. No. 47848June 17, 1941 Bonifacio Dangalan vs. Domingo Marticio, et al. G.R. No. 47837June 17, 1941 Segundo Garcia vs. El Director de Terrenos G.R. No. 47771June 17, 1941 Pacific Commercial Company vs. Graciano de la Rama G.R. No. 47745June 17, 1941 Jose Oliver Successors, Co. vs. Mariano Nable, et al. G.R. No. 47724June 17, 1941 Hermenegildo Deveza, et al. vs. Manuel Ruiz Ruiloba G.R. No. 47678-79June 17, 1941 El Hogar Filipino, et al. vs. Isidro de Santos, et al. G.R. No. 47660June 17, 1941 Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation vs. Vicente Versoza G.R. No. 47587June 17, 1941 Vicente Diaz vs. A.L. Yatco G.R. No. 47580June 17, 1941 Simeon Mandac vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 47570June 17, 1941 El Registrador de Titulos de Pampanga vs. Alfredo Hizon Mercado G.R. No. 47542June 17, 1941 La Fabrica de Cerveza de San Miguel (San Miguel Brewery) vs. Esteban C. Espiritu G.R. No. 47432June 17, 1941 Eustaquio Fule vs. Salvador Abad Santos, et al. G.R. No. 47358June 17, 1941 Manila Motor Company, Inc. vs. La Ciudad de Manila G.R. No. 47072June 17, 1941 El Director de Terrenos vs. Agustin Acosta, et al. G.R. No. 47965June 13, 1941 El Director de Terrenos vs. Mariano Abacahin, et al. G.R. No. 47799June 13, 1941 Eleuterio Neri, et al. vs. Ignacia Akutin, et al. G.R. No. 47738June 13, 1941 Alfredo Hizon Mercado, et al. vs. Buenaventura Ocampo, et al. G.R. No. 47734June 13, 1941 El Banco Nacional Filipino vs. Cornelio Pineda, et al. G.R. No. 47421June 13, 1941 El Registrador de Titulos de Nueva Ecija vs. El Director de Terrenos G.R. No. 47863June 10, 1941 Jose H. Junquera vs. Jose Vaña, et al. G.R. No. 48027June 10, 1941 In re: Benito Valdez, et al. vs. Vicente Albert, et al. G.R. No. 47892June 10, 1941 Pablo Valenzuela vs. Valerio Flores, et al. G.R. No. 47863June 10, 1941 Jose H. Junquera vs. Jose Vaño, et al. G.R. No. 47862June 10, 1941 Francisca Simon vs. Sinforoso Tagoc G.R. No. 47816June 10, 1941 Sabino Aguilos vs. Conrado Barrios, et al. G.R. No. 47789June 10, 1941 Fe Castro de Agbayani vs. El Juez de Paz de la Cabecera de la Provincia de Ilocos Norte, et al. G.R. No. 47780June 10, 1941 Cirilo Alafriz vs. Mariano Nable, et al. G.R. No. 47770June 10, 1941 Silvestre Gallano vs. Pablo S. Rivera, et al. G.R. No. 47764June 10, 1941 In re: Rosendo Santiago. Francisco V. Villarica vs. Concepcion Manikis G.R. No. 47762June 10, 1941 Silverio Morco vs. Salvador Muñoz G.R. No. 47756June 10, 1941 Luis Ocampo vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 47694June 10, 1941 People of the Philippines vs. Patricio Caldito, et al. G.R. No. 47689June 10, 1941 Wilfredo Maceda, et al. vs. Zosimo Fernandez, et al. G.R. No. 47686June 10, 1941 In re: Agapita Tiongson. Commonwealth of the Philippines vs. Teodoro Sandiko G.R. No. 47684June 10, 1941 People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio A. Maneja G.R. No. 47646 and 47657June 10, 1941 Francisco Baltazar, et al. vs. Andres Layug, et al. G.R. No. 47549June 10, 1941 J. Benton Clausen vs. Isabel Cabrera G.R. No. 47519June 10, 1941 Emiliano E. Garcia vs. Paz E. Velasco G.R. No. 47317June 10, 1941 Intestate Estate of Januaria Gonzalez. Sisenando Abarro vs. Tomasa de Guia G.R. No. 47454June 6, 1941 Adriano Trinidad vs. Andres S. Siochi, et al. G.R. No. 47260June 6, 1941 Bishop of Nueva Caceres, etc. vs. Eugenia M. Santos, et al. G.R. No. 47038-40June 6, 1941 Luis R. Pimentel vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 47032June 6, 1941 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Jose Miranda, Jr., et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. In re: Emiliano Guzman Northern Luzon Transportation, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Julin Go vs. El Banco Nacional Filipino Jose Vistan vs. El Arzobispo Catolico Romano de Manila Jose P. Bantug vs. Mamerto Roxas, et al. Hilario C. Rodriguez vs. Ramon Echevarria Lope Atienza vs. Maximino Castillo, et al. Lim Bonfing y Hermanos, Inc. vs. Teodorico Rodriguez El Banco Nacional Filipino vs. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. Kuan Low & Company vs. El Administrador de Aduanas Philippine Association of Mechanical and Electrical Engineers vs. M. Jesus Cuenco, et al. Carlos Doronilla vs. Dolores Vasquez de Arroyo, et al. Intestate Estate of Julio Magbanua. Mariano Magbanua, et al. vs. Manuel A. Akol, et al. Mariano B. Arroyo, et al. vs. Arsenio Dizon In re:Eleuterio Pilapil. Adriano Mendoza vs. Calixto Pilapil, et al. Manuel Villarama vs. Juanito Manlusoc Quintina R. Sabado vs. Leoncia Fernandez Mentholatum Co., Inc., et al. vs. Anacleto Mangaliman, et al. Josefa Bundalan, et al. vs. Juan de Vera, et al. Idonah Slade Perkins vs. Mamerto Roxas, et al. Felix B. Bautista, et al. vs. Gabriel Lasam, et al. Vicente Diaz vs. Popular Labor Union of Caibiran J.A. Wolfson vs. Manila Stock Exchange Angel P. Miguel vs. Arsenio P. Dizon, et al. Zacarias de Sadueste vs. Municipality of Surigao El Obispo Catolico Romano de Nueva Segovia vs. El Municipio de Santa Catalina Francisco Egmidio vs. Leon Regalado, et al. Pedro de Jesus vs. Guan Bee Co., Inc. A.L. Ammen Transportation Company, Inc. vs. La Comision de Servicios Publicos Philippine Railway Co. vs. Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. Paula Mercado vs. Chung Liu & Company Florencio Pelobello vs. Gregorio Palatino Leonardo Guison vs. La Ciudad de Manila Josefa Lanot, et al. vs. Eduviges Librada Monte de Piedad, et al. vs. Victorino Dangoy El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas vs. Consolacion M. Gomez, et al. Eduardo C. Guico vs. Nicasio San Pedro, et al. Jose L. Liwanag vs. Tolaram Menghraj, et al. Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. Arco Amusement Company A.K. Spielberger vs. L.R. Nielson, et al. In re: Leoncia Filomena Jardin. Andres Jardin, et al. vs. Severina Villamayor Bonifacio Dangalan vs. Domingo Marticio, et al. Segundo Garcia vs. El Director de Terrenos Pacific Commercial Company vs. Graciano de la Rama Jose Oliver Successors, Co. vs. Mariano Nable, et al. Hermenegildo Deveza, et al. vs. Manuel Ruiz Ruiloba El Hogar Filipino, et al. vs. Isidro de Santos, et al. Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation vs. Vicente Versoza Vicente Diaz vs. A.L. Yatco Simeon Mandac vs. Court of Appeals, et al. El Registrador de Titulos de Pampanga vs. Alfredo Hizon Mercado La Fabrica de Cerveza de San Miguel (San Miguel Brewery) vs. Esteban C. Espiritu Eustaquio Fule vs. Salvador Abad Santos, et al. Manila Motor Company, Inc. vs. La Ciudad de Manila El Director de Terrenos vs. Agustin Acosta, et al. El Director de Terrenos vs. Mariano Abacahin, et al. Eleuterio Neri, et al. vs. Ignacia Akutin, et al. Alfredo Hizon Mercado, et al. vs. Buenaventura Ocampo, et al. El Banco Nacional Filipino vs. Cornelio Pineda, et al. El Registrador de Titulos de Nueva Ecija vs. El Director de Terrenos Jose H. Junquera vs. Jose Vaña, et al. In re: Benito Valdez, et al. vs. Vicente Albert, et al. Pablo Valenzuela vs. Valerio Flores, et al. Jose H. Junquera vs. Jose Vaño, et al. Francisca Simon vs. Sinforoso Tagoc Sabino Aguilos vs. Conrado Barrios, et al. Fe Castro de Agbayani vs. El Juez de Paz de la Cabecera de la Provincia de Ilocos Norte, et al. Cirilo Alafriz vs. Mariano Nable, et al. Silvestre Gallano vs. Pablo S. Rivera, et al. In re: Rosendo Santiago. Francisco V. Villarica vs. Concepcion Manikis Silverio Morco vs. Salvador Muñoz Luis Ocampo vs. People of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Patricio Caldito, et al. Wilfredo Maceda, et al. vs. Zosimo Fernandez, et al. In re: Agapita Tiongson. Commonwealth of the Philippines vs. Teodoro Sandiko People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio A. Maneja Francisco Baltazar, et al. vs. Andres Layug, et al. J. Benton Clausen vs. Isabel Cabrera Emiliano E. Garcia vs. Paz E. Velasco Intestate Estate of Januaria Gonzalez. Sisenando Abarro vs. Tomasa de Guia Adriano Trinidad vs. Andres S. Siochi, et al. Bishop of Nueva Caceres, etc. vs. Eugenia M. Santos, et al. Luis R. Pimentel vs. People of the Philippines El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Jose Miranda, Jr., et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 47790 June 30, 1941
In re adoption of EMILIANO GUZMAN. PETRONILO RAMIREZ and ANACLETA CAMANDRE,petitioners-appellants.
Rupisan & Ramirez for appellants..-
MORAN,J.:
On May 20, 1940, spouses Petronilo Ramirez and Anacleta Camandre filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan a petition for the adoption of Emiliano Guzman, of age and natural son of said Petronilo Ramirez with one Cristina Guzman. The petition alleges that petitioners are childless; that the person sought to be adopted has been reared and brought up by them until he finished his course as forest ranger; and that he, together with his natural mother, consents to the adoption. The lower court, declaring that a person of age cannot legally be adopted under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, denied the petition, and from this order of denial, petitioners appealed.
The law applicable to the case is the old Code Procedure, the petition having been filed prior to July 1, 1940, when the new Rules of Court took effect. Sections 765 to 769 of the Code of Civil Procedure speak only of "minor" as the subject of the adoption proceeding provided therein; and, as correctly ruled by the trial court, the use of the term "minor" precludes, in the absence of specific provisions to the contrary, the adoption of adults.Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
Appellants argue, however, that the provisions of article 178 of the Civil Code, which impliedly sanctions the adoption of a person of age, cannot be deemed repealed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It will be noted that Chapter XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure appears to be a complete enactment on the subject of adoption, and may thus be regarded as the expression of the whole law thereon. So viewed, that chapter must be deemed to have repealed the provisions of the Civil Code on the matter. While, as a general rule, implied repeal of a former statute by a later one is not favored, yet "if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute it will operate similarly as a repeal of the earlier act." (Posadas v. National City Bank of New York, 296 U. S., 497, 80 Law. ed. 351.)
It has been held that "where the legislature frames a new statute upon a certain subject-matter, and the legislative intention appears from the latter statute to be to frame a new scheme in relation of such subject-matter and make a revision of the whole subject, there is in effect a legislative declaration, that whatever is embraced in the new statute shall prevail, and that whatever is excluded is discarded." (People v. Thornton, 186 III., 162, 173, 57 N. E. 841.)
And an author says: "So where there are two statutes on the same subject, passed at different dates, and it is plain from the frame-work and substance of the last that it was intended to cover the whole subject, and to be a complete and perfect system or provision in itself, the last must be held to be a legislative declaration that whatever is embraced in it shall prevail and whatever is excluded is discarded and repealed." (I Sutherland Statutory Construction, p. 521.)
Order is affirmed, with costs against appellants.
Avenceña, C.J., Laurel, and Horrilleno, JJ.,concur.
Separate Opinions
DIAZ,M.,disidente:
Disiento:
El Capitulo XLI de la Ley No. 190 no pudo haber venido a derogar todas las disposiciones del Codigo Civil en materia de Adopcion, porque no se refiere mas que a la forma en que puede adoptarse por una persona competente, un menor, no diciendose alli claramente ni permitiendo que se haga la inferencia de que uno que es mayor de edad no puede, aun con su consentimiento, ser adoptado. La adopcion, cuando se trata de casos como el de los interesados en esta causa es y debe considerarse como un contrato que requiere para su consumacion, la autorizacion judicial. Cuando no es contraria a la ley ni a la moral ni al orden publico, no hay razon para negarla dicha autorizacion judicial. Indudablemente no es contraria a la ley porque la permite precisamente el articulo 178 del Codigo Civil, el cual, como ya he dicho, no ha sido derogado y puede coexistir validamente con los articulos comprendidos dentro del Capitulo XLI de la referida Ley No. 190.
Debe tenerse presente que no es solamente el deseo de las partes interesadas, es decir, los solicitantes que piden la adopcion de Emiliano de Guzman por un lado, y dicho Emiliano de Guzman, por otro, establecer entre ellos una paternidad ficticia, sino un reconocimiento, mejor dicho, una confirmacion de una paternidad real, por lo menos entre el solicitante Petronilo Ramirez y Emiliano de Guzman, porque este es hijo de aquel, si bien con otra mujer que no es la solicitante Anacleta Camandre; y debe tenerse tambien presente que los solicitantes, como asi se afirma en los escritos que obran en autos, no tienen hijos; que han hecho crecer y cuidar y dado educacion enviandole a las escuelas hasta terminar sus estudios, a Emiliano de Guzman
Por todo lo expuesto, voto por la revocacion de la orden apelada, de modo que se permita la adopcion solicitada por Petronilo Ramirez y Anacleta Camandre.