Banawa vs.

Mirano
FACTS: Spouses Doroteo Banawa and Juliana Mendoza took care of Maria Mirano,
Julianas niece, since Maria is 9 years old and treated her the same way as they
treated the co-appellant Gliceria Abrenica, their legally adopted child. On May 5,
1921, the spouses bought a parcel of land situated at Brgy. Iba, Taal, Batangas from
Placido Punzalan and registered the said parcel of land in the name of Maria,
because the said spouses wanted something for Maria after their death.

On July 31, 1949, after a lingering illness, Maria Mirano died. At the time of her
death she left only as her nearest relatives the herein plaintiffs-appellees, namely
Primitiva, who is a surviving sister, and Gregoria, Juana and Marciano, all surnamed
Mirano, who are children of the deceaseds brother.

The Miranos filed a case in court against the Banawas with regards to the
possession of the Iba property as legal heirs of Maria. The court ruled in favor of the
Miranos. The Banawas appealed to the Court of Appeals stating that they are
entitled to the land in question by virtue of Section 5, Rule 100 of the Old Rules of
Court, the pertinent portion of which reads:

In case of the death of the child, his parents and relatives by nature, and not by
adoption, shall be his legal heirs, except as to property received or inherited by the
adopted child from either of his parents by adoption, which shall become the
property of the latter or their legitimate relatives who shall participate in the order
established by the Civil Code for intestate estates.

The defendant spouses died during the pendency of the case at the Court of
Appeals and were substituted by their legally adopted child Gliceria Abrenica and
her husband Casiano Amponin. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
lower court. The Appellants filed at the Supreme Court a petition for review by
certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding its ruling that Sec. 5, Rule
100 of the Old Rules of Court does not apply in the instant case because Maria
Mirano was not legally adopted.

ISSUE: Whether or not extrajudicial adoption is within the ambit of the provision?

HELD: The Supreme Court said no. It is very clear in the rule involved that
specifically provides for the case of the judicially adopted child and does not include
extrajudicial adoption. It is an elementary rule in statutory construction that when

the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean
exactly what it says.