Short answer. No. The Family Code voids marriages between adopted children of the same adopter for reasons of public policy. Two people with no blood relationship at all are barred from marrying simply because the same person adopted them both, and the marriage is void from the beginning.
What the law says
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter; (8) Between adopted children of the same adopter;
Family Code, Article 38 — Marriages Void for Public Policy. Read the full provision →
The clause is short and admits no exceptions
The provision voids a marriage between adopted children of the same adopter. It asks nothing about blood, since by definition there usually is none; nothing about whether the two grew up in the same house, since the adoptions may have been years apart; and nothing about their ages. One fact does all the work, which is that the same person adopted both. Where that is true the marriage is void from the beginning, and where it is not true this particular clause does not apply, however sibling-like the relationship may have felt in practice.
The companion clause covers the mixed household
Sitting immediately before it is the bar on marriage between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter. Together the two clauses treat the adopter's household as a single family for marriage purposes: the adopted child may not marry the adopter, and may not marry the adopter's other children, whether those children were adopted or born to the adopter. The point is not biology, which varies across every combination, but the family relation that the adoption decree created. That is why the enumeration spells out each pairing separately instead of stating a general rule.
Void from the beginning has consequences you may not expect
Because the marriage never validly existed, no amount of time, cohabitation or good faith converts it into a valid one. That has knock-on effects worth understanding before rather than after. Neither party acquires the rights that belong to a spouse, so a survivor cannot claim as one; property acquired during the union is not conjugal or community property and is dealt with under the rules for unions outside a valid marriage; and either party remains legally free to marry someone else, since there is no marriage to dissolve first. Children's rights are governed by their own separate rules.
Check the decrees, not the household
What settles the question is the adoption record for each of you, and specifically whether the adopter named in both is the same person. Households blend in ways paperwork does not always follow: a child may have been raised by a couple but adopted by only one of them, or taken in without any adoption at all. Those distinctions decide whether the clause bites. Obtain both adoption decrees and both civil registry birth records, and have a lawyer read them together, before a marriage licence application puts the question in front of a registrar.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Republic of the Philippines vs. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Abigael An Espina-dan vs. Marco Dan, G.R. No. 209031, April 16, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →