You are on page 1of 4

The one who wears the crown must bear its weight.

♕♛
Traveler | Fashionista | Writer | into Music | Soon-to-be
lawyer | Soul Seeker
! "

https://call-me-catalysis.tumblr.com/post/167787196125/lahom-vs-sibulo 10/24/19, 8:56 PM


Page 1 of 4
Lahom vs Sibulo
ISABELITA S. LAHOM, petitioner
vs.
JOSE MELVIN SIBULO (previously referred to as DR. MELVIN S.
LAHOM), respondent

G.R. No. 143989


July 14, 2003

Vitug, J:

Follow call-me-catalysis
Title Catalysis Ask-and-Share-Anything Theme

https://call-me-catalysis.tumblr.com/post/167787196125/lahom-vs-sibulo 10/24/19, 8:56 PM


Page 2 of 4
FACTS:

Isabelita Lahom, the petitioner, together with her husband, adopted Isabelita’s nephew and brought him up as their own because
they do not have children. In 1972, the trial court granted the petition for adoption, and ordered the Civil Registrar to change the
name of the child from Jose Melvin Sibulo to Jose Melvin Lahom.

https://call-me-catalysis.tumblr.com/post/167787196125/lahom-vs-sibulo 10/24/19, 8:56 PM


Page 3 of 4
Mrs. Lahom commenced a petition to rescind the decree of adoption, in which she averred that, despite her pleas and that of her
husband, their adopted son refused to use their surname Lahom and continue to use Sibulo in all his dealing and activities.

Thus, those events revealing Jose’s callous indifference, ingratitude and lack of care and concern prompted Lahom to file a
petition in Court in December 1999 to rescind the decree of adoption previously issued way back in 1972.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the subject adoption may still be revoked or rescinded by an adopter.

HELD:

Jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. The controversy
should be resolved in the light of the law governing at the time the petition was filed.

Prior to the institution of the case, in 1998, 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 (Section 19 of Article VI).

When Lahom filed said petition there was already a new law on adoption, specifically R.A. 8552 also known as the Domestic
Adoption Act passed on March 22,1998, wherein it was provided that: “Adoption, being in the 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” (Section 19).

But an adopter, while barred from severing the legal ties of adoption, can always for valid reasons cause the forfeiture of certain
© 2013–2019 Catalysis
benefits otherwise accruing to an undeserving child, like denying his legitime, and by will and testament, may expressly exclude
Powered by Tumblr
him from having a share in the disposable portion of his estate.

***

Note:
*This case digest is related to article 190-193 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

# $ % 0 notes

https://call-me-catalysis.tumblr.com/post/167787196125/lahom-vs-sibulo 10/24/19, 8:56 PM


Page 4 of 4

You might also like