IN RE JOHNSTON

G.R. No. L-18284

April 30 1963
Isabel
Valdes
Johnston
petitioners
responden Republic of the Philippines

Labrador

Hermosisima

ts
summary Isabel Valdes Johnston filed a petition with the CFI to adopt Ana Isabel

Henriette.., with her husbands consent. While the lower court granted
the petition, it gave the adopted child the surname of Valdes, thus Isabel filed a
motion to have the child use the surname Johnston, which was denied. SC
agreed with the lower court. CC entitles the adopted minor to use the adopters
surname, the adopters surname. Since Isabel singly adopted the kid, without
the concurrence of her husband, then her maiden name should be her adopted
name. Mere consent of the husband did not have the effect of making him the
adopting father. To make it so would cause confusion in the public making them
think that he also adopted the child and would also cause confusion in
successional rights.

facts of the case

-

On June 24 1960, Isabel Valdes Johnston (48 y.o., married to Raymund Johnston, Filipino,
childless) filed a petition for the adoption of one Ana Isabel Henriette Antonio Concepcion
Georgiana, then under the custody of Hospicio de San Jose, an orphanage in Manila. The
consent of the mother superior of the orphanage and Johnstons husband was obtained
Notices were issued and hearings were held. The lower court granted Jonstons petition.
Johnston then filed a motion on October 24 1960 praying that he surname given to the
adopted child be Valdes Johnston instead of Valdes only. Motion was denied by the lower
court.
She argues that she is using the surname of her husbad by virtue of Article 370, par. 1 of
the Civil Code. Because it is the surname she used in filing for adoption, then obviously it
should be the surname given to her adopted child. Using Valdes will give the impression
that the child was illegitimate a situation humiliating to adopter and adopted.

issue

What should be the surname of the child? Valdes

Ratio
-

Article 341(4) of the Civil Code which entitles the adopted minor to use the adopters
surname, refers to the adopters surname and not to her surname acquired by virtue of
marriage. Petitioners real surname is Valdes, not Johnston, and since she made the
adoption singly without the concurrence of her husband, and not as a married woman,
then her maiden name should be her adopter name.
The adoption created a personal relationship between adopter and adopted, but the
consent of Raymund to her individual adoption, did not have the effect of making him an
adopting father, to entitle the child to use his surname.
Since adoption gives the adoptee the same rights and duties as a legitimate child of the
adopter, confusion would result if the minor children were allowed to use the surname of
the spouse who didnt join the adoption. To allow the minor to use Raymunds surname
would also lead the public that Ramund adopted her as well. Later, when questions of
successional rights arise, the husbands consent might be presented to prove that he had
actually joined in the adoption.
1