DUNCAN vs. CFI OF RIZAL

[209 SCRA 518]

ESGUERRA, J.:

FACTS:

Sometime in May, 1967, a child, less than a week old (only 3 days old) was given to petitioners Robin Francis Radley Duncan and his wife Maria Lucy Christensen, for them to adopt, by Atty. Corazon de Leon Velasquez. The child was later on baptized as Colin Berry Christensen Duncan with the aforementioned espouses appearing in the records of said baptism as the parents of said child;

Atty. Corazon de Leon Velasquez on the other hand, received the infant from the child's unwed mother who told the former never to reveal her (the mother's) identity because she wanted to get married and did not want to destroy her future. The mother instructed Atty. Corazon de Leon Velasquez to look for a suitable couple who will adopt the child. The mother did not provide for the maintenance and support of her child; 9

In the petition for adoption filed by petitioners in September, 1967, Atty. Corazon de Leon Velasquez, as the de facto guardian or loco parentis of the child subject of the adoption petition, gave the written consent required by law;

Learning, from the testimony of witness Atty. Corazon de Leon Velasquez that the natural mother of the child sought to be adopted was still alive, the court then pressed upon the witness to reveal the identity of said mother. The witness refused to divulge the same on the ground that there existed an attorney and client relationship between them. She had been instructed by her client not to reveal the latter's identity. She could not now violate such privilege communication.

Since the person whose written consent to the adoption (Atty: Corazon de Leon Velasquez) is assailed by the trial court as being unauthorized and had consequently caused the rejection of the petition, this Tribunal will now look into her alleged authority or lack thereof to give the controverted consent.

Sometime in May of 1967, the child subject of this adoption petition, undisputedly declared as only three days old then, was turned over by its mother to witness Atty. Corazon de Leon Velasquez. The natural and unwedded mother, from that date on to the time of the adoption proceedings in court which started in mid- year of said 1967, and up to the present, has not bothered to inquire into the condition of the child, much less to contribute to the livelihood, maintenance and care of the same. In short, this parent is the antithesis of that described in the law as "known living parent who is not insane Or hopelessly intemperate or has not abandoned such child.

ISSUE:

The question now is whether or not Atty. Corazon de Leon Velasquez, the undisputed custodian of the abandoned waif may be considered as the guardian under Art. 340 or the person standing in loco parentis of said infant contemplated in Art. 349 of the Civil Code.

HELD:

The herein petitioners, the spouses Robin Francis Radley Duncan and Maria Lucy Christensen, appear to be qualified to adopt the child. There is no showing that they suffer from any of the disqualifications under the law. Above all, they have the means to provide the child with the proper support, care, education and love that a growing child needs, even if they have previously adopted another child as theirs. The fact that even before they have applied for legal custody and adoption of the infant they have already showered it with love and care and had it baptized, with them appearing in the records of the baptism as the parents of the child, speaks well of the genuine desire of petitioners to have the child as their very own. The child was born in May, 1967, and he will be at this time, 1976, about 9 years of age. In all the years, from the time he was turned over to the herein petitioners when he was only about a week old (there is no showing that the said child was ever placed at any' time in the care and custody of some other persons) he had been cared for and loved by the spouses Robin Francis.

It seems to Us that when the 3-day old baby was left to and placed in the hands of Atty. Corazon de Leon Velasquez, the helpless infant was in dire need of someone who could give it protection and sustain its delicate and fragile life.  Atty. Velasquez was under no legal compulsion to accept the child and to extend to it the protection and care it badly needed. Since there had been no showing that the identity of the natural mother was made known to the trial court or to the herein petitioners, nor had said mother seen fit to present herself before the court despite the public notice given to the proceedings as required by law, there clearly appears only one person who could be considered as the guardian exercising patria potestas over such abandoned child. Since there was no guardian ad litem appointed by the court and the child not being in the custody of an orphan asylum, children's home or any benevolent society, there could not have been anyone other than Atty. Corazon de Leon Velasquez who could, with reason, be called the guardian of said infant. It was she who had actual. physical custody of the infant and who, out of compassion and motherly instinct, extended the mantle of protection over the hapless and helpless infant which otherwise could have suffered a tragic fate, like being thrown into some garbage heap as had often happened to some unwanted illegitimate babies. The least this Court could do to recognize and acknowledge her good Samaritan deed is to extend, as it hereby extends, to her the recognition that she was a de facto guardian exercising patria potestas over the abandoned child.

[statutory]

The trial court in its decision had sought refuge in the ancient Roman legal maxim "Dura lex sed lex" to cleanse its hands of the hard and harsh decision it rendered. While this old adage generally finds apt application in many other legal cases, in adoption of children, however, this should be softened so as to apply the law with less severity and with compassion and humane understanding, for adoption is more for the benefit of unfortunate children, particularly those born out of wedlock, than for those born with a silver spoon in their mouths. All efforts or acts designed to provide homes, love, care and education for unfortunate children, who otherwise may grow from cynical street urchins to hardened criminal offenders and become serious social problems, should be given the widest attitude of sympathy, encouragement and assistance. The law is not, and should not be made, an instrument to impede the achievement of a salutary humane policy. As often as is legally and lawfully possible, their texts and intendments should be construed so as to give all the chances for human life to exist — with a modicum promise of a useful and constructive existence.