Brehm vs. Republic
August 28, 2016
Article 6
G.R. No. L-18566
September 30, 1963
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF ELIZABETH MIRA, GILBERT R. BREHM and ESTER MIRA
BREHM,petitioners-appellees,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
Pitt
Vasquez
Office of the Solicitor General for oppositor-appellant.
for
petitioners-appellees.
PAREDES, J.:
Facts: Brehm is temporary assigned in Subic Bay as a U.S Navy. He married Ester Mira on October 9, 1958.
On January 28, 1959 they filed a Joint Petition with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC) for
the adoption of the child named Elizabeth Mira which is a daughter of Ester Mira with the other man. The
court notice that Brehm testified his residence in the Philippines was merely temporary same being
effective only for the purpose of his tour of duty with the U.S Navy, thus disqualifying him from making
an adoption under Art. 335 (4) New Civil Code that the court has no jurisdiction over him. But they said
that Art. 335 is not applicable because the adoption under par. 3, Art. 338 of the Civil Code which expressly
authorized the adoption of a step-child by a step-father that he will be intend to reside in the Philippines
after his tour of duty with the U.S Naval Force.
Issue: Whether or not Brehm, not being permanent resident of the Philippines is qualified to adopt
Elizabeth Mira?
Ruling: No, because the adoption under par. 3, Art. 338, Civil Code of the Philippines, which states —The
following may be adopted:
(1) The natural child by the natural father
(2) Other legitimate children, by the father or mother
(3) A step-child, by the step-father or step-mother.
Hence, the above article was connected with Art.335 (4) of the New Civil Code of the Philippines; Sec.2,
Rule 100;Rules of Court: “Non-resident alien”, that the court has no jurisdiction over him since he
previously testified his residence in the Philippines was merely temporary same being effective only for
the purpose of his tour of duty with the U.S and it is therefore, mandatory, because it contains words of
positive prohibition and is couched in the negative terms importing that the act required shall not be done
otherwise than designated. Therefore, Art.5 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is applicable on this case
because it states that “Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be
void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.”