1. ADOPTION; USE OF SURNAMES; SURNAME OF ADOPTED CHILD TO FOLLOW THAT OF ADOPTER. — Petitioner-appellant, a married woman, petitioned for the adoption of a minor with the permission of her husband singly without the latter’s concurrence. The lower court granted the adoption prescribing the minor’s surname as that of petitioner’s maiden surname. Petitioner appeals and argues that since she is now using the surname of her husband and because that is the surname she used in filing the petition for adoption, and under which she is known to all her relatives, friends and acquaintances, she had ceased to be known by her maiden surname, and that the use by impression that she is her illegitimate child begotten before her marriage, and therefore the court should have decreed that the minor whom she is adopted should be allowed to bear the surname she is using. Held: The provision of law (Article 341, par. 4 Civil Code) which entitles the adopted minor to the use of the adopter’s surname, refers to the adopter’s own original family surname and not to her surname acquired by virtue of marriage. As petitioner-appellant made the adoption without concurrence of her husband, her name as adopter was her maiden name. The adoption created a personal relationship between her and the adopted, and the consent of her husband to the adoption by her individually did not have the effect of making an adopting father, so as to entitle the child to the use of the husband’s surname. Since adoption gives the person adopted the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter (Article 341, par. 1, Civil Code), much confusion would result if the adopted child were allowed to use the surname of the spouse who did not join in the adoption. It would mislead the public into believing that the child had also have been adopted by the husband and, later, if questions of successional rights arise, the husband’s consent to the adoption might be presented to prove that he had actually joined in the adoption.

Appeal taken by petitioner-appellant Isabel Valdes Johnston from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dated September 19, 1960 and its order of October 31, 1960, Hon. Andres Reyes, presiding, prescribing the use of the surname Valdes by the adopted child instead of Valdes Johnston, petitioner’s married name at the time of the filing of the petition.

On June 24, 1960, petitioner-appellant Isabel Valdes Johnston, filed a petition for the adoption of one Ana Isabel Henriette Antonia Concepcion Georgiana, 2 years and 10 months old, then under the custody of the Hospicio de San Jose, an orphanage situated in the city of Manila. The petition shows that petitioner-appellant is 48 years old, married to Raymond Arthur Johnston, Filipino, residing at 12 San Lorenzo Drive, Makati, Rizal; that the couple are childless; that the consent of the mother Superior of the orphanage and the husband of petitioner-appellant was obtained.

Notice of the hearing of the petition was issued and duly published as required by law, and after hearing, the lower court rendered a decision granting the petition, with the following dispositive part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is granted, declaring the child Ana Isabel Henriette Antonia Concepcion Georgiana freed from all legal obligations and obedience and maintenance with respect to its natural parents and is, to all legal intents and purposes, the child of the petitioner, with the corresponding change of surname VALDES, which is the surname of petitioner."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioner-appellant filed a motion on October 24, 1960, praying that the surname given to the minor be "Valdes Johnston", instead of "Valdes" only, but this motion was denied by the lower court in its order of October 31, 1960. Hence, this appeal.

Petitioner-appellant argues that since she is now using the surname of her husband by virtue of Article 370, par. 1 of the new Civil Code, and because that is the surname, (Valdes Johnston) she used in filing the petition in the present case, under which she testified at the time of the trial, and under which she is now known to all her relatives, friends and acquaintances, she had ceased to be known by her maiden surname, and the lower court should have decreed that the minor whom she adopted should be allowed to bear the surname she is now using. She also argues that the use of the surname "Valdes" by the adopted child, as prescribed by the lower court, will create the impression that she is the illegitimate child of petitioner- appellant begotten before her marriage, a situation which is humiliating to both adopter and adopted.

The Solicitor General in reply argues that while it is true that a married woman is permitted to add to her surname her husband’s surname, the fact remains that appellant’s surname is Valdes and not Johnston; that a married woman has a surname of her own to which may be added her husband’s surname if she so chooses; that if the minor be permitted to use the surname Valdes Johnston, much confusion would result because the public would be misled into believing that she was adopted by appellant’s husband also, which is not true in this case.

We agree with the decision of the lower court authorizing or prescribing the use of the surname Valdes by the adopted child. The provision of law (Art. 341, par. 4, Civil Code) which entitles the adopted minor to the use of the adopter’s surname, refers to the adopter’s own surname and not to her surname acquired by virtue of marriage. Petitioner-appellant’s real surname is Valdes and not Johnston, and as she made the adoption singly without the concurrence of her husband, and not as a married woman, her name as adopter was her maiden name. The adoption created a personal relationship between the adopter and the adopted, and the consent of Raymond Johnston, Isabel Valdes’ husband, to the adoption by her individually, did not have the effect of making him an adopting father, so as to entitle the child to the use of Johnston’s own surname.

Since adoption gives the person adopted the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter (Art. 341, par. 1, Civil Code), much confusion would indeed result, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, if the minor child herein were allowed to use the surname of the spouse who did not join in the adoption.

For one thing, to allow the minor to adopt the surname of the husband of the adopter, would mislead the public into believing that she had also been adopted by the husband, which is not the case. And when later, questions of successional rights arise, the husband’s consent to the adoption might be presented to prove that he had actually joined in the adoption.

It is to forestall befuddling situations pointed out above and other possible confusing situations that may arise in the future, that this Court is inclined to apply strictly the provision of the Civil Code to the effect that an adopted child use the surname of the adopter himself or herself, and not that which is acquired by marriage.

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the order of the court below prescribing the use of the surname "Valdes" by the adopted minor Ana Isabel Henriette Antonia Concepcion Georgiana, is hereby affirmed. Without costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., took no part.