Domestic Adoption

In re: Michelle Lim

Facts: Monina Lim, petitioner, who was an optometrist was married with Primo Lim (1974) but
were childless. (Michelle and Michael) Minor children, were entrusted to them, whose parents
were unknown as shown by a certification of DSWD. The spouses registered the children
making it appear as if they were the parents (simulated). Unfortunately, in 1998, Primo died.
Monina Lim then married an American Citizen, Angel Olario in December 2000.

Petitioner decided to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty given under RA 8552 to
individuals who simulated the birth of a child. In 2002, she filed separate petitions, by herself,
for adoption of Michelle and Michael before the trial court. Michelle was then 25 years old and
already married, and Michael was 18 years and seven months old. Michelle, her husband,
Michael and Olario gave their consent to the adoption executed in an affidavit.

RTC: Dismissed. Since petitioner had remarried, petitioner should have filed the petition jointly
with her new husband. Art 8552 Sec 7 (c): “Husband and wife shall jointly adopt”

Petitioner’s Contention: The rule on joint adoption must be relaxed because it is the duty of the
court and the State to protect the paramount interest and welfare of the child to be adopted;
that joint parental authority is not necessary in this case since, at the time the petitions were
filed, Michelle was 25 years old and already married, while Michael was already 18 years of age;
that parental authority is not anymore necessary since they have been emancipated having
attained the age of majority.

Issue: WON petitioner who has remarried can singly adopt.

Held: Petition was denied. The time the petitions were filed, petitioner had already remarried.
Husband and wife shall jointly adopt except in 3 instances which was not present in the case at
bar. In case spouses jointly adopts, they shall jointly exercised parental authority.

The use of the word “shall” signifies that joint adoption of husband and wife is mandatory. This
is in consonance with the concept of joint parental authority since the child to be adopted is
elevated to the level of a legitimate child, it is but natural to require spouses to adopt jointly.
The affidavit of consent given by Olario will not suffice since there are certain requirements
that he must comply as an American Citizen. He must meet the qualifications set forth in Sec7
of RA8552. The requirements on residency and certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt
cannot likewise be waived pursuant to Sec 7.

Even though the children are already emancipated, which terminates parental authority, it is
merely just one of the effects of legal adoption. The adoptee is still considered a legitimate
child of the adopter with all the rights of a legitimate child such as: (1) to bear the surname of
the father and the mother; (2) to receive support from their parents; and (3) to be entitled to
the legitime and other successional rights. Conversely, the adoptive parents shall, with respect
to the adopted child, enjoy all the benefits to which biological parents are entitled such as
support and successional rights. Hence, the fact that Michelle and Michael are emancipated is
not sufficient to justify the failure of the spouses to file a petition jointly.

The Supreme Court is not unmindful of the main purpose of adoption statutes, which is the
promotion of the welfare of the children. Regrettably, the Court must deny the petition for
adoption in the case at bar, for the law is clear and it cannot be modified without violating the
proscription against judicial legislation.

Note: Monina Lim and Olario filed for dissolution of marriage. However, the filing of a case for
dissolution of the marriage 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.