Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs Court of Appeals and Zenaida C.

Bobiles,
respondent. 205 SCRA 356, January 24, 1992.

Fact of the Case:

The petition for adoption was filed by Zenaida Bobiles on February 2, 1988, when
the law applicable was Presidential Decree No. 603, the Child and Youth Welfare. Under
said code, a petition for adoption may be filed by either spouses or by both of them.
However, after the trial court rendered its decision and while the case was pending on
appeal in the Court of Appeals, the Family Code, took effect on August 3, 1988. Under
the new law, joint adoption by the husband and wife is mandatory. The petitioner
Republic of the Philippines contends that the petitioner for adoption should be dismissed
as it was filed solely by the private respondent. It argues that the Family Code must be
applied retroactively to the petition filed by Mrs. Bobiles, as the latter did not acquire a
vested right to adopt Jason Condat by the mere filing of her petition for adoption.

Issue:
(1) Whether or not the Mrs. Bobiles acquired vested right to adopt Jason Condat
by mere filing of her petition for adoption prior to the effectivity of the Family
code.
(2) Whether or not the petition to adopt granted by RTC be dismiss for Mrs.
Bobiles solely filed the adoption, in violation to the new Family Code that
both husband and wife must jointly file for adoption.

Held:
The established rule is that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the
statute in force at the time of the commencement of action. Mrs. Bobiles filed at the time
when the law effective was the Child and Youth Welfare. Under said law, the private
respondent had the right to file a petition for adoption by herself. Upon her filing, her
right to file such petition alone and to have the same proceed to final adjudication, in
accordance with the law in force at the time, was already vested and cannot be prejudice
or impaired by the enactment of a new law.
Article 246 of the Family Code also provides for retroactive effect of appropriate
relevant provisions thereof, subject to the qualification that such retrospective application
will not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code
or other laws.