the issue relating to adoption is a pondering issue in the present India and people have started to adopt so this paper throws light on the concept of Adoption in IndiaFull description
Full description
Descrição: k n rao
Sample Adoption AgreementFull description
k n raoFull description
Persuasive speech that show why it is better to look for a pet in a shelter rather than a pet store.Full description
New farming technology
BasicDescripción completa
Legal Form on Adoption
WHO MAY ADOPT Republic v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 100!" Republic v. v. Tole#a$o Tole#a$o G.R. No. %&1&' Republic v. v. Alarco$() Alar co$()er*ara er*ara G.R. No. %"""1
R+,-R+M+NT/ OR ADOPTON $ re a#optio$ of Mic2elle a$# Mic2ael 3i4 G.R. No. 15%%6 3a$#i$*i$ v. Republic G.R. No. 15&%& 760058 Consents for adoption must be written and notarized. Ca$* v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 10"!0 Depart4e Depart4e$t $t of /ocial /ocial Welfare elfare a$# Develop Develop4e$t 4e$t v. 9ele$ 9ele$ A.M. No. RT:( %51!56 71%%'8 Participation Participation of the appropriate government instrumentality in performing the necessary studies and precautions is important and is indispensable to assure the child’s welfare.
NAT-R+ AND ++CT/ O ADOPTON Republic v. Her$a$#e; G.R. No. 11'60% 71%%58 The change of surname of the adoptee as a result of the adoption and to follow that of the adopter does not lawfully extend to or include the proper or given name. The birth certicate, as it appears in the civil register, contains the ocial name. !t does not matter if the mother, with all intention to abandon it later, named the child for the sa"e of naming it. !f they really want to change the name, they must institute another action under #ule $%& of the #ules of Court.
Republic v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 10!5%" $ re a#optio$ of /tep2a$ie Nat2< Astor*a Garcia G.R. No. 1&!11 Teotico v. Del )al G.R. G.R . No. 3(1'"! The relationship relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter and the adopted and does not extend to the relatives of the adopting parents or of the adopted child except only as expressly provided for by law. 'ence, no relationship is created between the adopted and the collaterals of the adopting parents. (s a conse)uence, the adopted is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of the adopter.
R+/C//ON O ADOPTON 3a2o4 v. /ibulo G.R. No
Ot2er la$#4ar= cases Ta4ar*o v. CA 71%%68 *here the petition for adoption was granted after the child had shot and "illed a girl, the +upreme Court did not consider that retroactive eect may be given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents
accruing at a time when adopting parents had no actual or physically custody over the adopted child. #etroactive eect may perhaps be given to the granting of the petition for adoption where such is essential to permit the accrual of some benet or advantage in favor of the adopted child. !n the instant case, however, to hold that parental authority had been retroactively lodged in the adopting parents so as to burden them with liability for a tortuous act that they could not have foreseen and which they could not have prevented would be unfair and unconscionable.
3a;ati$ v. Ca4pos> 71%'%8 (doption is a -uridical (ct, proceeding in rem. ecause it is articial, the statutory re)uirements in order to prove it must be strictly carried out. Petition must be announced in publications and only those proclaimed by the court are valid. (doption is never presumed. /a$tos v. Ara$;a$so> 71%558 /alidity of facts behind a nal adoption decree cannot be collaterally attac"ed without impinging on that court’s -urisdiction.
