Prasnik vs. Republic
1 of 2
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/prasnik-v-republic?q=G.R.+No.+L-8639
Leopoldo Prasnik successfully petitions to adopt his acknowledged
natural children, born out of wedlock, in order to secure their best
interests and prevent his relatives from sharing in his inheritance.
Leopoldo Prasnik, a man who lived with Paz Vasquez without the bene�t of
marriage, �led a petition before the Court of First Instance of Rizal to adopt
four minor children, namely Pablo Vasquez, Ernesto Vasquez, Maria
Lourdes Vasquez, and Elizabeth Prasnik. These children are his natural
children with Paz Vasquez. Prasnik claimed that he wanted to adopt the
children to promote their best interests and well-being, and to prevent his
relatives abroad from sharing in his inheritance. The Solicitor General
opposed the petition, arguing that Prasnik could not legally adopt the
children because Article 338 of the new Civil Code only allows a natural
child to be adopted by his natural father or mother if the child has not been
acknowledged as a natural child.
The main issues raised in this case are:
1. Can a natural child who has been acknowledged by his natural father
or mother be adopted by the same parent under Article 338 of the new
Civil Code?
11/7/2024, 8:15 AM
Prasnik vs. Republic
2 of 2
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/prasnik-v-republic?q=G.R.+No.+L-8639
2. Does the prohibition against a person who has an acknowledged
natural child from adopting under Article 335 of the new Civil Code
apply to the adoption of his own acknowledged natural children?
3. Is the adoption of an acknowledged natural child necessary and
desirable, considering that the rights of an acknowledged natural child
are less than those of a legitimate child?
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prasnik, a�rming the decision of the
lower court that granted the petition for adoption. The Court held that
Article 338 of the new Civil Code allows the adoption of a natural child,
whether acknowledged or not, by his natural father or mother. The Court
also ruled that the prohibition against a person who has an acknowledged
natural child from adopting under Article 335 of the new Civil Code does
not apply to the adoption of his own acknowledged natural children.
Finally, the Court recognized the bene�ts of adoption, even for
acknowledged natural children, as it gives them a legitimate status and
promotes their best interests.
The Supreme Court's decision was based on a liberal interpretation of
Articles 338 and 335 of the new Civil Code. The Court recognized that the
law intends to allow adoption of a natural child, whether acknowledged or
not, to promote the best interests of the child. The Court also distinguished
the prohibition under Article 335, which applies to the adoption of a minor
by a person who has an acknowledged natural child, from the adoption of
one's own acknowledged natural children.
11/7/2024, 8:15 AM