REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. COURT OF APPEALS and ZENAIDA C.

BOBILES
G.R. No. 92326, 24 January 1992, SECOND DIVISION (REGALADO, J.)

Zenaida Corteza Bobiles filed on her own a petition to adopt Jason Condat, then six (6)
years old and who had been living with her family since he was four (4) months old, before
the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City. The petition was set for hearing and was duly
published and copies thereof were sent to important authorities, including Salvador
Condat, father of the child and the social worker assigned to the court. A copy of said order
was posted on the bulletin board of the court and in the other places it had required for
that purpose. Nobody appeared to oppose the petition. Thereafter, the petition for adoption
was granted but the same was appealed by herein petitioner to the CA.

The republic contests the validity of the resolution for adoption on the ground that the
family code requires that spouses should jointly adopt a child. However, Bobiles argues
that the family code should not be retroactively applied since at the time when she filed a
petition for adoption, the governing law is P.D. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Act in
which adoption of either spouses is permitted. Moreover, Bobiles presents evidence that
although her husband was not a party to the adoption, the latter approved and consented
her initiative of adopting Jason Condat.

ISSUE: Should the provisions of the Family Code concerning adoption law be applied
retroactively against the petition for adoption filed before the effectivity of the said
code?

RULING: No. This is because the adoption case had already become a vested right which
cannot be affected by laws enacted after the petition was filed. Adoption cases should be
ruled out considering the best interests of the adoptee which is nonetheless superior over
stringent application of procedural rules.

As regards the republic’s argument that even the family code should not apply
retroactively, the CA should have modified the RTC’s resolution by granting the adoption in
favor of the wife only because her husband was not a petitioner to the same case. The SC,
however, said that this view is untenable. Although the husband was not named as one of
the petitioners, his affidavit of consent was attached to the petition signifying his interest in
adopting Jason. Thus, this just implies that the husband actually joined his wife in adopting
the child.