Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 182 views

    Lazatin V Campos

    Uploaded by

    Allen Windel Bernabe
    - Renato claimed to be the adopted child of Margarita de Asis and filed a motion to intervene in her estate. However, he did not present any decree of adoption. - The court denied Renato's motion because adoption must be proven through a valid court order or legal process, not just affidavits or testimony about living together. - For secondary evidence like testimony to be admitted, the party must first prove the original adoption document existed and was lost, which Renato failed to do.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lazatin V Campos

    Uploaded by

    Allen Windel Bernabe
    182 views2 pages
    - Renato claimed to be the adopted child of Margarita de Asis and filed a motion to intervene in her estate. However, he did not present any decree of adoption. - The court denied Renato's motion because adoption must be proven through a valid court order or legal process, not just affidavits or testimony about living together. - For secondary evidence like testimony to be admitted, the party must first prove the original adoption document existed and was lost, which Renato failed to do.

    Original Title

    Lazatin v Campos

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Renato claimed to be the adopted child of Margarita de Asis and filed a motion to intervene in her estate. However, he did not present any decree of adoption. - The court denied Renato's motion because adoption must be proven through a valid court order or legal process, not just affidavits or testimony about living together. - For secondary evidence like testimony to be admitted, the party must first prove the original adoption document existed and was lost, which Renato failed to do.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    182 views2 pages

    Lazatin V Campos

    Uploaded by

    Allen Windel Bernabe
    - Renato claimed to be the adopted child of Margarita de Asis and filed a motion to intervene in her estate. However, he did not present any decree of adoption. - The court denied Renato's motion because adoption must be proven through a valid court order or legal process, not just affidavits or testimony about living together. - For secondary evidence like testimony to be admitted, the party must first prove the original adoption document existed and was lost, which Renato failed to do.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    RENATO LAZATIN alias RENATO STA. Mariano M.

    Lazatin), the petitioner


    CLARA, petitioner was an "illegitimate son" of Dr.
    v Lazatin and was later adopted by
    HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE C. CAMPOS, him.
    JR., NORA L. DE LEON, BERNARDO DE - During the hearing, Renato
    LEON, ARLENE DE LEON and IRMA L. presented no decree of adoption in
    VELOSO, respondents his favor. Instead, he attempted to
    prove, over private respondents'
    objections, that he had recognized
    FACTS: the deceased spouses as his parents;
    - Margarita de Asis died, leaving a he had been supported by them until
    holographic will providing for a their death;
    legacy ofcash, jewelry, and stocks to - Respondent court first reserved its
    respondent Arlene de Leon, a ruling when petitioner could not
    granddaughter; a legacy of support present evidence on the issue of his
    to Rodolfo Gallardo, a son of her late alleged legal adoption, respondent
    sister; and a legacy of education to court discontinued the hearing and
    Ramon Sta. Clara, son of petitioner gave the parties time to file
    Renato Lazatin. memoranda on the question of the
    - During her lifetime, Margarita de admissibility of the evidence sought
    Asis kept a safety deposit box at the to be introduced by petitioner.
    bank which either she or respondent
    Nora de Leon (adopted daughter) ISSUES:
    could open. - W/N Renato has established his
    - Five days after her death, Nora status as an adopted child.
    opened the safety deposit box and
    removed its contents. RULING:
    - Nora claims that she opened the - NO.
    safety deposit box in good faith,
    believing that it was held jointly by - Adoption is a juridical act, a
    her and her deceased mother. proceeding which creates between
    - After having learned that the safety two persons a relationship similar to
    box was opened, petitioner's son, that which results from legitimate
    Ramon Sta. Clara, filed a motion in paternity and filiation.
    the probate court, claiming that the - Only an adoption made through the
    deceased had executed a will court, or in pursuance with the
    subsequent to that submitted for procedure laid down under Rule 99
    probate and demanding its of the Rules of Court is valid in this
    production. jurisdiction.
    - Petitioner Renato Sta. Clara filed a - The fact of adoption is never
    motion to intervene in the estate of presumed, but must be affirmatively
    Margarita de Asis as an adopted proved by the person claiming its
    child, on the basis of an affidavit existence.
    executed by Benjamin Lazatin - The absence of proof of such order of
    (brother of the deceased Dr. adoption by the court, as provided
    by the statute, cannot be substituted
    by parol evidence that a child has
    lived with a person, not his parents,
    and has been treated as a child to
    establish such adoption.
    - The correct order of proof is as
    follows: Existence; execution; loss;
    contents; although this order may be
    changed if necessary in the
    discretion of the court.
    - As earlier pointed out, petitioner
    failed to establish the former
    existence of the adoption paper and
    its subsequent loss or destruction.
    - Secondary proof may only be
    introduced if it has first been
    established that such adoption paper
    really existed and was lost.

    You might also like