SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Case Digest

IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P. LIM

IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHAEL JUDE P. LIM

FACTS:

Lim, the husband of the petitioner in this case, jointly registered the minor children, whose
parents were unknown, to make it appear that they were the children’s parents. The children
were named Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude P. Lim. The spouses reared and cared for the
children as if they were their own.

When Lim died, the petitioner then married Angel Olario, an American citizen. Thereafter,
petitioner decided to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty given under Republic Act No.
8552 to those individuals who simulated the birth of a child. Thus, petitioner filed separate
petitions for the adoption of Michelle and Michael before the trial court. At the time of the filing
of the petitions for adoption, Michelle was 25 years old and already married, while Michael was
18 years and seven months old.

Michelle and her husband gave their consent to the adoption as evidenced by their Affidavits of
Consent.

However, the trial court ruled that since petitioner had remarried, petitioner should have filed
the petition jointly with her new husband. The trial court ruled that joint adoption by the
husband and the wife is mandatory citing Section 7(c), Article III of RA 8552 and Article 185 of
the Family Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner, who has remarried, can singly adopt.

RULING:

NO.

At the time the petitions for adoption were filed, petitioner had already remarried. She filed the
petitions by herself, without being joined by her husband Olario. Section 7, Article III of RA 8552
reads:
SEC. 7. Who May Adopt. - The following may adopt:

(a) xxx

(b) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above stated for Filipino nationals: Provided,
That his/her country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines, that he/she
has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the
application for adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered, that
he/she has been certified by his/her diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate
government agency that he/she has the legal capacity to adopt in his/her country, and that
his/her government allows the adoptee to enter his/her country as his/her adopted
son/daughter: Provided, further, That the requirements on residency and certification of the
aliens qualification to adopt in his/her country may be waived for the following:

(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of
consanguinity or affinity; or

(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of his/her Filipino spouse; or

(iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his/her spouse
a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino
spouses; or

(c) xxx

Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:

(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or

(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided,
however, That the other spouse has signified his/her consent thereto; or

(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.

The use of the word shall in the above-quoted provision means that joint adoption by the
husband and the wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with the concept of joint parental
authority over the child which is the ideal situation. As the child to be adopted is elevated to the
level of a legitimate child, it is but natural to require the spouses to adopt jointly. The rule also
insures harmony between the spouses.
Title: Dela Cruz vs. Dela Cruz
Citation: G.R. No. 19391

FACTS:

Manuel dela Cruz was declared legally adopted by Sps. Cecilio and Eustaquia dela Cruz when he
was a minor before the CFI of Ilocos Sur.

Seven years later, the adoptive parents filed with the Court of First Instance Pangasinan a
petition to have the adoption revoked on the ground that adopted minor had definitely
repudiated the adoption by open display of defiance animosity, revulsion and disobedience to
petitioners and had for more than 3 years abandoned home by living with his natural mother in
Ilocos Sur.

A motion to dismiss was filed by the counsel for the minor on the grounds of the lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the adopted minor. The motion was
granted by the said Court.

ISSUE: Whether the Court correctly granted the motion?

RULING:

No.

The Rules of Court designates the venue of the proceeding for adoption, which is the place
where the petitioner resides, but is silent with respect to the venue of proceedings for rescission
and revocation of adoption, which proceedings are distinct from each other. The Civil Code did
not specify the Court where the proceedings should be filed.

In the proceeding for adoption, the determination is the propriety of establishing the
relationship of parent and child between two persons not so related by nature. For that
purpose, the Court inquires into the qualifications and disqualifications of adopter; the personal
circumstances of the person to be adopted; probable value and character of his estate. On the
other hand, the proceeding for the revocation of adoption, either the adopting parent or the
adopted seeks to sever the relationship previously established and the inquiry refers to the truth
of the grounds upon which the revocation is brought. Also, the petition for revocation is entirely
new proceeding, depending on the facts which have happened since the decree of adoption.
Applying Rule 99 in a suppletory character, it is also in the place of residence of petition, which in
this case, in Pangasinan.

The petitioners in this case resided in Pangasinan, having moved there from their former
residence in Ilocos Sur. The Court held that there is no interference of courts in this case. The
validity or effectiveness of the decree of adoption issued by the CFI of Ilocos Sur is not in
question. What is sought is the revocation because of the circumstances subsequently
supervening which, under the law, render the construction of the adoptive relationship justified
and impractical. The venue therefore was properly held, and the Court had acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the minor, who was represented by his natural mother as guardian ad litem.

Title: ISABELITA S. LAHOM vs. JOSE MELVIN SIBULO (previously referred to as "DR. MELVIN S.
LAHOM")

Citation: G.R. No. 143989, July 14, 2003

FACTS:

On 05 May 1972, an order granting the petition was issued and ISABELITA S. LAHOM,
hereinafter referred as petitioner, is the adopter of JOSE MELVIN SIBULO (previously referred to
as "DR. MELVIN S. LAHOM"), hereinafter referred as respondent.

In keeping with the court order, the Civil Registrar of Naga City changed the name "Jose Melvin
Sibulo" to "Jose Melvin Lahom."

However, years later in December of 1999, Mrs. Lahom commenced a petition to rescind the
decree of adoption before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, of Naga City.
Prior to the institution of the case, specifically on 22 March 1998, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8552,
also known as the Domestic Adoption Act, went into effect. The new statute deleted from the
law the right of adopters to rescind a decree of adoption.

Section 19 of Article VI of R.A. No. 8552 now reads:

"SEC. 19. Grounds for Rescission of Adoption. — Upon petition of the adoptee,
with the assistance of the Department if a minor or if over eighteen (18) years of age but
is incapacitated, as guardian/counsel, the adoption may be rescinded on any of the
following grounds committed by the adopter(s): (a) repeated physical and verbal
maltreatment by the adopter(s) despite having undergone counseling; (b) attempt on the
life of the adoptee; (c) sexual assault or violence; or (d) abandonment and failure to
comply with parental obligations.

Adoption, being in the best interest of the child, shall not be subject to rescission
by the adopter(s). However, the adopter(s) may disinherit the adoptee for causes
provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code." (emphasis supplied)

Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition, contending principally (a) that the trial court
had no jurisdiction over the case and (b) that the petitioner had no cause of action in view of the
aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 8552.

Petitioner contends that the proscription in R.A. No. 8552 should not retroactively apply, i.e., to
cases where the ground for rescission of the adoption vested under the regime of then Article
3482 of the Civil Code and Article 1923 of the Family Code.

In an order, dated 28 April 2000, the trial court ordered for the dismissal of the petition. Hence
the current petition for review on Certiorari.

ISSUE: May the subject adoption, decreed on 05 May 1972, still be revoked or rescinded by an
adopter after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552?

HELD:

NO.

The court discusses the concept of "vested right" which is a consequence of the constitutional
guaranty of due process that expresses a present fixed interest which in right reason and natural
justice is protected against arbitrary state action; it includes not only legal or equitable title to
the enforcement of a demand but also exemptions from new obligations created after the right
has become vested. Rights are considered vested when the right to enjoyment is a present
interest, absolute, unconditional, and perfect or fixed and irrefutable.

Hence, adoption decree cannot be revoked anymore.

The Proposed Rule on custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of
Minors

The Court Resolved to APPROVE the Rule on custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in
Relation to Custody of Minors which took effect on May 15, 2003. The following are the salient
provisions of the law:

Who May File

It may be brought by any person claiming the right of custody.

Where to File

 In the Family Court where the petitioner resides or where the minor may be found.
 In the regular courts in the absence of the presiding judge in the Family Court or in places
where there no Family Courts, before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any of its
members.

Contents of Petition

1. The personal circumstances of the petitioner and respondent;

2. The name, age and present whereabouts of the minor and his or her relationship to the
petitioner and respondent;
3. The material operative facts constituting deprivation of custody;
4. Such other matters which are relevant to the custody of minor.
The verified petition shall be accompanied by a certificate against forum shopping, which
the petitioner must sign personally.
Hearings

At the discretion of the court, the hearings may be closed to the public and the records of the
case shall not be released to non-parties without court approval.

The case will be dismissed if the petitioner or his representative fails to appear. If the respondent
fails to appear after filing an answer, the court will allow the presentation of evidence ex parte.

Provisional Award of Custody

The provisional award of custody follows this order of preference:

1. Both parents jointly;

2. Either parent (subject to minor’s choice if over 7 years old and of sufficient discernment;
3. Grandparent (subject to minor’s choice if over 7 years old and of sufficient discernment);
4. Eldest sibling (over 21 years old);
5. Actual custodian (over 21 years old);
6. Any person or institution deemed suitable by the court.

In its award of provisional custody, the court shall also provide temporary visitation rights for the
non-custodial parent.

Interim Remedies

Hold Departure Order

The minor child subject of the petition shall not be brought out of the country without prior
order from the court while the petition is pending.

The court, motu proprio or upon application under oath, may issue ex parte a hold departure
order, addressed to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, directing it not to allow the
departure of the minor from the Philippines without the permission of the court.

The Family Court issuing the hold departure order shall furnish the Department of Foreign Affairs
and the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation of the Department of Justice a copy of the hold
departure order within twenty-four hours from its issuance and through the fastest available
means of transmittal.
Protection Order

The court may issue a Protection Order requiring any person:

(a) To stay away from the home, school, business, or place of employment of the minor, other
parent or any other party, or from any other specific place designated by the court;

(b) To cease and desist from harassing, intimidating, or threatening such minor or the other
parent or any person to whom custody of the minor is awarded;

(c) To refrain from acts of commission or omission that create an unreasonable risk to the
health, safety, or welfare of the minor;

(d) To permit a parent, or a party entitled to visitation by a court order or a separation

agreement, to visit the minor at stated periods;

(e) To permit a designated party to enter the residence during a specified period of time in order
to take personal belongings not contested in a proceeding pending with the Family Court; and

(f) To comply with such other orders as are necessary for the protection of the minor.

Judgment

The custody shall be awarded to the proper party after taking into account the best interests of
the child.

Likewise, the judgment may order the parent/s to provide support, maintenance, or education to
the minor. Moreover, it may also order the non-custodial parent to have visitation rights or
temporary custody.

In general is that parents should have custody over their minor. But the State has the right to
intervene where the parents, rather than care for such children, treat them cruelly and
abusively, impairing their growth and well-being and leaving them emotional scars that they
carry throughout their lives unless they are liberated from such parents and property counseled.
(In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Minor Shang Ko Vingson Yu, UDK No. 14817,
Jan. 13, 2014)

Motion to Dismiss

A motion to dismiss may only be allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal

An appeal shall be taken by means of a Notice of Appeal. However, no appeal will be taken
without prior filing of a motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial within 15 days from
receipt of the judgment.

Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Amparo distinguished

As to the governing rule, Writ of Habeas Corpus is governed by Rule 102. Whereas, the Writ of
Amparo is governed by A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC.

As to its purpose, Writ of Habeas Corpus is directed to the person detaining another,
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the
day and cause of his capture and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the court
or judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf. Whereas, the Writ of Amparo is a
remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity.

As to its coverage, the Writ of Habeas Corpus involves the right to liberty of and rightful custody
by the aggrieved party. Whereas, the Writ of Amparo involves the right to life, liberty, and
security of the aggrieved party and covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.

As to the rights violated, in the Writ of Habeas Corpus there is an actual violation of the
aggrieved party’s right. Whereas, in the Writ of Amparo there is an actual or threatened violation
of the aggrieved party’s right.

As to where to file, Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed in the RTC or any judge thereof, CA or any
member thereof in instances authorized by law; or SC or any member thereof. Whereas, Writ of
Amparo is filed in the RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any
of its elements occurred; SB or any justice thereof; CA or any justice thereof; SC or any justice
thereof.
As to who may file, for the Writ of Habeas Corpus: (1.) Party for whose relief it is intended; or (2.)
Any person on his behalf. Whereas, the Writ of Amparo is in the following order: (1.) Any
member of the immediate family; (2.) Any ascendant, descendant, or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity; (3.) Any concerned
citizen, organization, association or institution.

As to the enforceability of the writ, insofar as the Writ of Habeas Corpus if granted by SC or CA:
enforceable anywhere In the Philippines; If granted by RTC: enforceable only within the judicial
district. Whereas, the Writ of Amparo is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines regardless of
who issued the same.