G.R. Nos.

168992-93 May 21, 2009

IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P. LIM,
MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHAEL JUDE P. LIM,
MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner.

FACTS:

Petitioner is an optometrist by profession. On 23 June 1974, she married Primo Lim (Lim). They were
childless. Minor children, whose parents were unknown, were entrusted to them by a certain Lucia Ayuban
(Ayuban). Being so eager to have a child of their own, petitioner and Lim registered the children to make it
appear that they were the children’s parents. The children 2 were named Michelle P. Lim (Michelle) and Michael
Jude P. Lim (Michael). Michelle was barely eleven days old when brought to the clinic of petitioner. She was born
on 15 March 1977.3 Michael was 11 days old when Ayuban brought him to petitioner’s clinic. His date of birth is 1
August 1983.4

The spouses reared and cared for the children as if they were their own. They sent the children to
exclusive schools. They used the surname "Lim" in all their school records and documents. Unfortunately, on 28
November 1998, Lim died. On 27 December 2000, petitioner married Angel Olario (Olario), an American citizen.

In the Certification issued by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Michelle was
considered as an abandoned child and the whereabouts of her natural parents were unknown. 10 The DSWD
issued a similar Certification for Michael

ISSUE:

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

RULING: NO.

SEC. 7. Who May Adopt. - The following may adopt:

(a) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights, of good moral
character, has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, emotionally and
psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee, and who
is in a position to support and care for his/her children in keeping with the means of the family. The
 requirement of sixteen (16) year difference between the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived
when the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee, or is the spouse of the adoptee’s parent;

The filing of a case for dissolution of the marriage between petitioner and Olario is of no moment. It is
not equivalent to a decree of dissolution of marriage. Until and unless there is a judicial decree for the
dissolution of the marriage between petitioner and Olario, the marriage still subsists. That being the
case, joint adoption by the husband and the wife is required. We reiterate our ruling above that since, at
the time the petitions for adoption were filed, petitioner was married to Olario, joint adoption is
mandatory.

G.R. No. 143989 July 14, 2003

ISABELITA S. LAHOM, petitioner,

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

FACTS:

The spouses Dr. Diosdado Lahom and Isabelita Lahom to take into their care Isabelita's nephew Jose
Melvin Sibulo and to bring him up as their own. At the tender age of two, Jose Melvin enjoyed the warmth, love
and support of the couple who treated the child like their own. Indeed, for years, Dr. and Mrs. Lahom fancied on
legally adopting Jose Melvin. Finally, in 1971, the couple decided to file a petition for adoption. On 05 May 1972,
an order granting the petition was issued that made all the more intense than before the feeling of affection of
the spouses for Melvin. In keeping with the court order, the Civil Registrar of Naga City changed the name "Jose
Melvin Sibulo" to "Jose Melvin Lahom." A sad turn of events came many years later. Eventually, 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.

Jose Melvin 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 asseverated, by way of opposition, 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 3482of the Civil Code and Article 1923 of the Family Code.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject adoption still be revoked or rescinded by an adopter after the effectivity of R.A. No.
8552, and if in the affirmative, whether or not the adopter’s action prescribed.

RULING:
The Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time OF the
commencement of the action. The adopter would lose the right to revoke the adoption decree after the lapse of
that period. The exercise of the right within a prescriptive period is a condition that could not fulfill the
requirements of a vested right entitled to protection. It must also be acknowledged that a person has no vested
right in statutory privileges.

G.R. No. L-19391 September 29, 1964

CECILIO DE LA CRUZ and EUSTAQUIA DEVIS DE LA CRUZ, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
MANUEL JESUS DE LA CRUZ

FACTS:

Minor Manuel J. Aquino was declared the legally adopted child of the spouses Cecilio de la Cruz and
Eustaquia Devis de la Cruz. Seven years later the adopting parents filed in the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan 1 a petition to have the decree of adoption revoked on the ground that the adopted minor had
definitely repudiated the adoption by open display of defiance, animosity, revulsion and disobedience to
petitioners and had for more than three years abandoned petitioners' home by living with his natural mother,
Felicidad Dasalla, in Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur. A special appearance was entered by counsel for the minor with a
motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that (1) the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject-matter
thereof; (2) the Court had not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the adopted minor; (3) venue was
improperly laid; and (4) the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The Court added by implication, that it had no power to interfere with the judgment of another court of
coordinate jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not such petition was filed in the proper court

RULING:

The validity or effectiveness of the decree of adoption issued by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur is not in
question.

We was properly laid in the case; and with respect to the objection that the court does not have jurisdiction over
the adopted minor, we note that petitioners-appellants filed a motion below for the appointment of the minor's
natural mother, Felicidad Dasalla, as his guardian ad litem, although the court did not think it necessary to grant
the same in view of its order of dismissal.