LAHOM VS.

SIBULO
G.R. No. 143989 - July 14, 2003

J. Melencio-Herrera

FACTS:

The spouses Dr. Diosdado Lahom and Isabelita Lahom decided to file
a petition for adoption of Jose Melvin Sibulo. Subsequently, an order
granting the petition was issued. In keeping with the court order, the civil
registrar of Naga City, changed the name of Jose Melvin Sibulo to Josde
Melvin Lahom. Eventually, Mrs. Lahom commenced a petition to rescind
the decree of adoption for the reason that respondent, despite the pleadings
of said spouses, refused to change his surname to Lahom to the frustrations
of the spouses. In all the dealings and activities he is Jose Melvin Sibulo.
That herein petitioner being a widow, and living alone, has yearned for the
care and show of concern from a son, but respondent remained indifferent
and would only come to Naga to see her once a year.

Prior to the institution of the case, RA 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. To this Melvin
moved for the dismissal of the petition contending that the petitioner had no
cause of action.

ISSUE:

Whether the adopter, while barred from severing the legal ties of
adoption, can always, for a valid reason cause the forfeiture of his
inheritance.

RULING:
It was months after the effectively of RA 8552 that herein petitioner
filed an action to revoke. By then, the new law, had already abrogated and
repealed the right of an adopter under the Civil Code. Consistently, the court
held that the action for rescission of the adoption decree no longer could be
pursued. However, an adopter, while barred from severing the legal ties of
adoption, can always for a valid reason cause the forfeiture of certain
benefits otherwise accruing to an undeserving child. Upon the grounds
provided for by law, an adopter may deny to an adopted child his legitime,
and, by will, may freely exclude him from having a share in the disposable
portion of his estate.