See - G.R. No. L-15266
"x x x.
But it is contended that petitioner could not have brought his son Tan Nam to the Philippines for the reason that he has already been adopted by his godfather who was financially able to give him education and support with the logical result that his (petitioner's) naturalization will not benefit him (his son) because under the law he will follow the citizenship of his adoption father. In the first place, there is no sufficient evidence to show that the child was in effect adopted as claimed it appearing that the alleged adoption is merely supported by petitioner's affidavit. In the second place, this Court has already held that the rights of a legitimate child given to an adoption child, as stated in Article 341 of our Civil Code, do not include the acquisition of the citizenship of the adopter (Cheng Ling vs. Galang, L-11931, October 27, 1958). Even, therefore, if we assume that petitioner's son has been adopted as claimed, the fact remains that he would still retain the citizenship of his natural father with the result that he should eventually benefit from it should his father become a naturalization Filipino. Hence, the alleged adoption cannot justify petitioner's failure to educate his Tan Nam as required by Law.
x x x."
