G.R. No. L-36309 - IN RE: Malkinson vs. Agrava

On October 13, 1972, petitioners-spouses filed a verified petition for the adoption of the minor Luis Alberto Martin de Santos.
The minor was born on August 4, 1969, in Madrid, Spain, as the acknowledged natural child of petitioner Ana Marie de Santos Malkinson.
Petitioners contended that since their marriage on March 6, 1972, the child had been living with them under their care and custody, thereby establishing facts that contributed to the child's welfare.
The petitioner husband, Frederick William Malkinson, is an American citizen gainfully employed as a seaman, while his co-petitioner spouse is a Filipino citizen and a property owner in the Philippines.
Both petitioners emphasized that they possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law for the adoption to serve the best interest of the child.

Judge Vicente M. Santiago, Jr., overseeing the case at the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court of Manila, issued an order on October 18, 1972, giving the petition due course, setting a hearing for January 8, 1973, and directing appropriate notices to be sent to relevant government offices.
Upon her return from leave, the respondent judge (Hon. Corazon Julian Agrava) issued an order on November 22, 1972, dismissing the petition on the ground that a Filipino child could not be adopted by an alien, as the petition alleged the husband’s alienage.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration on December 18, 1972; however, the motion was denied, leaving the dismissal orders intact pending appeal.

Petitioners appealed the dismissal orders on the premise that the existing jurisprudence (specifically the Therkelsen and Cathey cases) establishes that alienage by itself does not disqualify a foreigner from adopting a Filipino child.
They argued that under the clear language of the Civil Code, only non-resident aliens or resident aliens from countries with which the Philippines has broken diplomatic relations are disqualified as adopters.
The petitioners maintained that both petitioners, as a resident alien and a Filipino citizen respectively, met all legal requisites for adoption under Philippine law.

Whether the alien status of the petitioner husband, solely on the basis of his nationality, is sufficient to disqualify him from adopting a Filipino minor.
Whether the plain language of the Civil Code and the controlling precedents (Therkelsen and Cathey) preclude the dismissal of an adoption petition where one adopter is a resident alien and the other a Filipino citizen.
Whether the interpretation that requires both adopter and adopted to share the same nationality is legally tenable under the Civil Code provisions and established jurisprudence.