SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Atty. Erick Cabuslay

Rule 99- 101

RULES OF COURT

RULE 99: Adoption and Custody of Minors

RULE 100: Rescission and Revocation of Adoption
*** BOTH repealed by: Administrative Matter 02-6-02-SC
RULE 101: Proceedings for Hospitalization of Insane Persons

Group 2

Dulay, Mary Bessadel

Erum, Ramon Khalil IV
Escalante, Leo Jr
Evangelista, Kent John
Fuentes, Arczft Ran
Inok, Erick Jay
Lozada, Leah
Matilac, Gridlin
Nenaria, Janine Louise Mae
Olaco, Jan-Lawrence
Nalla, Glene

1
 Member Participation

Part 1: Overview on Adoption – DULAY

A. Concept of Adoption
B. Nature of Adoption
C. Purpose of Adoption
D. Policy of the State on Adoption
E. Effects of Adoption
F. Bases of Adoption Jurisdiction
G. Preference of Adoption:

Part 2: Rules on Domestic Adoption –

Basis: Sections 1-25 of A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC
a. Section 4. Who may adopt ERUM
b. Section 5. Who may be adopted
c. Section 6. Venue
d. Section 7. Contents of the Petition

e. Section 8. Rectification of Simulated Birth ESCALANTE

f. Section 9. Adoption of Foundling
g. Section 10. Change of Name
h. Section 11. Annexes to the petition

i. Section 12-16. Procedure EVANGELISTA

j. Section 17. Book of Adoptions
k. Section 18. Confidential nature of proceedings and
records

Part 3. Rules on Inter-Country Adoption –

Basis: R.A. 8043 – Inter-Country Adoption Act
a.
b. Where to file petition - FUENTES
c. Section 4. Inter- Country adoption board
d. Section 5. Composition of the Inter-Country Board
e. Section 8. Who may be adopted

f. Section 9. Who may adopt INOK

g. Section 10. Application shall be supported
h. “Best interest of the minor” standard concept –
A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC; Section 14

Cases:
→ Anonymous v. Curamen, AM P-08-2549, June
18, 2010, 621 SCRA 212
→ DSWD v. Judge Belen, AM RTJ-96-1362, July LOZADA
18, 1997
→ In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P.
Lim, Monina P. Lim, GR 168992-93. May 21,

2
 2009, 588 SCRA 98 -
→ In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie
Nathy Astorga Garcia, GR 148311. Mar. 31,
2005, 454 SCRA 541 -
→ Lahom v. Sibulo, GR 143989, July 14, 2003,
406 SCRA 135 -
→ Landingin v. Republic, GR 164948. June 27, MATILAC
2006, 493 SCRA 415 –
→ Republic v. Hernandez, GR 117209. Feb. 9,
1996, 253 SCRA 509
→ Ching Leng v. Galang, G.R. No. L—11931, NALLA
Oct. 27, 1958
→ Republic v. Miller, G.R. No. 125932, Apr 21,
1999
→ Republic v. CA, Hughes, G.R. No. 100835,
Oct. 26, 1993
→ Republic v. Toledano, G.R. No. 94147, June 8,
1994

Part 4 RULE 100: Rescission of Adoption –

Basis: Sections 19- 24 of A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC MATILAC
a. Section 19. Rescission of the adoption of the
adoptee -
 Form of petition
 Who may file
 Grounds for rescission
b. Section 20. Venue -
c.
d. Section 21. Time within which to file petition - NENARIA
e. Section 22. Order to answer -
f. Section 23. Effects of judgment of rescission -
g. Section 24. Service of judgment –
h.
i.
j. RULE 101: Proceedings for hospitalization of
insane persons
k.
l. Section 1. Venue, petition for commitment - OLACO
m. Who may file
n. Requisites
a. Section 2. Order for hearing -
b. Section 3. Hearing and Judgment -
c. Section 4. Discharge of Insane -
d. Section 5. Assistance of fiscal in the proceeding -

3
4
Part 1: Overview on Adoption

A. Concept of Adoption

Adoption is a juridical act that creates between two persons certain

relations, purely civil, of paternity and filiation. The adopted becomes a
legitimate child of the adopter with reciprocal rights and obligations arising
from that relationship. Consequently, the child has the right to bear the
surname of the adopter, receive support and to inherit. (Article 189, Family
Code).

It is a juridical act creating a relationship between two persons,

whether related or not, whereby a person (adopted) is raised to the status of a
legitimate child of the other (adoptee).

De Facto Adoption, is similar to what is known as the qualified adult

rule, it is made an exemption to the minority rule on the assumption that the
formal adoption was omitted while the person was still a minor and the
reason could be inaction or postponement. This means that while the child
could have been adopted during minority, the adopter failed to do so. If the
child could have been adopted during minority, the child could be adopted
after reaching legal age. De facto adoption must however, be converted to
legal adoption with court approval for all the privileges, rights and duties of
the adopter and the adoptee to legally attach

B. Nature of Adoption

Adoption requires a proceeding in rem, and may only be proven by a

judicial decree issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, not by open and
continuous cohabitation. Thus, extrajudicial adoption is void.

In the decided case of In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie

Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 148311, March 31, 2005, Adoption is the
process of making a child, whether related or not to the adopter, possess in
general, the rights accorded to a legitimate child. It is a juridical act, a
proceeding in rem which creates between two persons a relationship similar
to that which results from legitimate paternity and filiation. The modern
trend is to consider adoption not merely as an act to establish a relationship
of paternity and filiation, but also as an act which endows the child with a
legitimate status.

The validity of the adoption of a child cannot be challenged

collaterally. It must be a direct attack. In Sayson vs Court of Appeals, 205
SCRA 321 (1992), it was said that the challenge to the validity of the
adoption cannot be made collaterally, as in their action for partition, but in a
direct proceeding frontally addressing the issue, for the presumption arises in

5
such cases where the validity of the judgment is thus attacked that the
necessary jurisdictional facts were proven.

In the decided case of Santos vs Aranzanso, 16 SCRA 344, it was

held that the judgment in an adoption case cannot be collaterally attacked,
for if this were not the rule, the status of adopted children would always be
uncertain.

C. Purpose of Adoption -

Adoption was originally considered to supply solace to those who

have no children or who lost their children, so that the void of childless
home may be filled. This is to extend to the unfortunate children the
protection of society in the person of the adopter.

D. Policy of the State on Adoption

Adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the interest and
welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration and are designed to
provide homes, parental care and education for unfortunate, needy or
orphaned children and give them the protection of society and family in the
person of the adopter as well as to allow childless couples or persons to
experience the joys of parenthood and give them legally a child in the person
of the adopted for the manifestation of their natural parental instincts. Every
reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble
and compassionate objectives of the law. (Malkinson vs Agrava, 153 Phil
339 (1973)).

However, in the decided case of Cang vs. Court of Appeals (296

SCRA 128), The liberality with which this Court treats matters leading to
adoption insofar as it carries out the beneficent purposes of the law to ensure
the rights and privileges of the adopted child arising therefrom, ever mindful
that the paramount consideration is the overall benefit and interest of the
adopted child, should be understood in its proper context and perspective.
The Court's position should not be misconstrued or misinterpreted as to
extend to inferences beyond the contemplation of law and jurisprudence.

Thus, the discretion to approve adoption proceedings is not to be

anchored solely on best interests of the child but likewise, with due regard to
the natural rights of the parents over the child. (Landigin vs Republic, GR
164948, June 27, 2006)

6
E. Effects of Adoption

All legal ties between the biological parent(s) and the adoptee shall
be severed and the same shall be vested on the adopter(s), except in cases
where the biological parent is the spouse of the adopter. (Section 16 of RA
No 8552)

The relationship established by the adoption is limited to the adopting

parents and does not extend to their other relatives, except as expressly
provided by law. Thus, the adopted child cannot be considered as a relative
of the ascendants and collaterals of the adopting parents, nor of the
legitimate children which they may have after the adoption, except that the
law imposes certain impediments to marriage by reason of adoption. Neither
are the children of the adopted considered descendants of the adopter.

Adoption, once decreed by the Court shall have the following effects:

A. Under the Family Code only “civil purpose” not “political purposes”
inheriting the citizenship. Under RA 8552, the adopted shall be for all
“intents and purposes” as an all-encompassing and all embracing.

B. The adopters and the child acquire reciprocal rights and obligations
arising from the relationship of parent and child including the right of the
adopted to use the surname of the adopter. Adoption however, is not
recognized as a way to acquire citizenship. The adopted retains
citizenship of natural parents. While a child adopted by a married
woman, without concurrence husband follows the maiden name.

C. The parental authority of parents by nature is terminated and same is

vested to the adopter or adopters except if the adopter is the stepparent of
the child to be adopted in which case the parental authority of the
biological remains but such shall be exercisable jointly with the adopter.

D. Under Article 189 (3) of the Family Code, the adopted remains and
intestate heir of the parent by nature and other blood relatives. Under RA
8552, all legal ties between the biological parent and adoptee has been
severed. It appears now that an adopted child is given the right of
representation which right is endowed on legitimate children. In effect,
what the legitimate children enjoy, the adopted must also enjoy without
discrimination. It must be noted that even illegitimate have the right of
representation.

7
F. Bases of Adoption Jurisdiction

The governing law on the process of adoption is LEX DOMICILII or

the "law of the domicile" in the conflict of laws.

In considering the bases of adoption jurisdiction, the general rule

which shall govern is the child’s personal law, if the adopter and adoptee
have different domiciles.

The exception to such rule is when the Adopter’s personal law is

considered, if the child’s domicile is merely constructive.

G. Preference in Adoption

The following are the preferences in Adoption:

1. Adoption by the extended family

2. Domestic Adoption

3. Inter-Country Adoption

Part 2: Rules on Domestic Adoption –

Basis: Sections 1-25 of A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC

THE FOLLOWING MAY ADOPT (SECTION 4)

1. Filipino Citizens
1. Must be of legal age;
2. Must be in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights;
3. Must be of good moral character;
4. Must not have been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;
5. Must be emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for
children;
6. Must be at least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee; and
7. Must be in a position to support and care for his or her children in
keeping with the means of the family.

2. Aliens
1. Must possess the same qualifications as above stated for Filipino
nationals;
2. His or her country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the
Philippines;
3. Must have been living in the Philippines for at least three (3)
continuous years prior to the filing of the application for adoption
AND maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered;

8
 4. Must have been certified by his or her diplomatic or consular office or
any appropriate government agency;
a. that he or she has the legal capacity to adopt in his or her
country, AND
b. that his or her government allows the adoptee to enter his or her
country as his/her adopted son/daughter.

The requirements on residency and certification of the alien's

qualification to adopt in his or her country may be waived for the
following:
a. A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within
the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
b. One who seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of his/her
Filipino spouse; or
c. One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt
jointly with his/her spouse a relative within the fourth (4th)
degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse.

3. Guardians
1. There must be termination of guardianship between the guardian and
the ward; and
2. The guardian must have been cleared of his/her financial
accountabilities.

GENERAL RULE: Husband and wife shall jointly adopt.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. If one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate spouse of the other;
2. If one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate child, provided
that the other spouse has signified his/her consent thereto;
3. If the spouses are legally separated from each other.

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS MAY BE ADOPTED (SECTION 5)

1. Any person below eighteen (18) years of age who has been
voluntarily committed to the Department under Articles 154, 155 and
156 of P.D. No. 603 or judicially declared available for adoption;

2. The legitimate child of one spouse, by the other spouse;

3. An illegitimate child, by a qualified adopter to raise the status of the

former to that of legitimacy;

4. A person of legal age regardless of civil status, if, prior to the

adoption, said person has been consistently considered and treated by
the adopters as their own child since minority;

5. A child whose adoption has been previously rescinded; or

9
 6. A child whose biological or adoptive parents have died: Provided,
That no proceedings shall be initiated within six (6) months from the
time of death of said parents.

7. A child not otherwise disqualified by law or these rules.

VENUE OF THE PETITION (SECTION 6)

The petition for adoption shall be filed with the Family Court of the
province or city where the prospective adoptive parents reside.

CONTENTS OF THE PETITION (SECTION 7)

Filipino Adopter - The petition must contain the following:

1. The jurisdictional facts;
2. That the petitioner possesses all of the qualifications in Section 5, and
none of the disqualifications under Republic Act 8552 or any other
pertinent laws.

Alien Adopter - The petition must contain the following:

1. The jurisdictional facts;
2. That the petitioner possesses all the qualifications in Section 5, and
none of the disqualifications under Republic 8043 or any other
pertinent laws;
3. That his country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the
Philippines;
4. That he has been certified by his diplomatic or consular office or any
appropriate government agency to have the legal capacity to adopt in
his country and his government allows the adoptee to enter his
country as his adopted child and reside there permanently as an
adopted child; and
5. That he has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3)
continuous years prior to the filing of the petition and he maintains
such residence until the adoption decree is entered.

The requirements of certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt in his

country and of residency may be waived in accordance to the exceptions
provided in Section 4.

Common Contents of Both Petitions - Regardless if the adopter is an Alien

or a Filipino Citizen, the petition for adoption must also content the
following:

1. If the adopter is the legal guardian of the adoptee, the petition shall
allege that guardianship had been terminated and the guardian had
cleared his financial accountabilities.

10
 2. If the adopter is married, the spouse shall be a co-petitioner for joint
adoption except if:
a. One spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other, or
b. If one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child and the
other spouse signified written consent thereto, or
c. If the spouses are legally separated from each other.

3. If the adoptee is a foundling, the petition shall allege the entries which
should appear in his birth certificate, such as name of child, date of
birth, place of birth, if known; sex, name and citizenship of adoptive
mother and father, and the date and place of their marriage.

4. If the petition prays for a change of name, it shall also state the cause
or reason for the change of name.

5. The first name, surname or names, age and residence of the adoptee as
shown by his record of birth, baptismal or foundling certificate and
school records.

6. That the adoptee is not disqualified by law to be adopted.

7. The probable value and character of the estate of the adoptee.

8. The first name, surname or names by which the adoptee is to be

known and registered in the Civil Registry.

9. A certification of non-forum shopping.

RECTIFICATION OF A SIMULATED BIRTH

The following are the allegations that must be in the petition that seeks
rectification of a simulated birth (sec. 8):

(a) Petitioner is applying for rectification of a simulated birth;

(b) The simulation of birth was made prior to the date of effectivity of
Republic Act No. 8552 and the application for rectification of the birth
registration and the petition for adoption were filed within five years from
said date;

(c) The petitioner made the simulation of birth for the best interests of the
adoptee; and

(d) The adoptee has been consistently considered and treated by petitioner as
his own child.

The Simulated Birth Rectification Act or RA No. 11222 grants criminal and

11
administrative amnesty to persons, and those who cooperated with them,
who made it appear in the birth certificate of their adopted children that they
are their biological parents. The grant of amnesty is subject to the following
conditions:

A. That the simulation of birth was for the best interest of the child, and the
child has been consistently considered and treated as the grantee/s’ own; and

B. That a petition for adoption with an application for rectification of the

simulated birth shall be applied for within 10 years from the date of
effectivity of the law on March 29, 2019.

Those who meet the above-stated conditions may avail of administrative

proceedings for the adoption and rectification of the simulated birth record if
the following conditions are also present:

A. That the child has been living with the person/s qualified to avail of the
amnesty for at least three (3) years before March 29, 2019; and

B. That a certificate declaring the child legally available for adoption

(CDCLAA) is issued by the DSWD in favor of the child.

If the adopters are qualified under the law and the necessary consent, if
applicable, has been secured, the adopter may proceed with the
administrative adoption by filing a petition for adoption with an application
for rectification of simulated birth record. The Petition shall state the
circumstances surrounding the simulation of the birth, and with supporting
documents identified in RA No. 11222. Below is a flow chart on the
administrative proceedings. It must be noted that the Petition, documents,
records and papers relating to the proceedings are strictly confidential.

12
FOUNDLING, ABANDONED, DEPENDENT OR NEGLECTED
CHILD

In case the adoptee is a foundling, an abandoned, dependent or neglected

child, the petition shall allege (sec. 9):

(a) The facts showing that the child is a foundling, abandoned, dependent or
neglected;

(b) The names of the parents, if known, and their residence. If the child has
no known or living parents, then the name and residence of the guardian, if
any;

(c) The name of the duly licensed child-placement agency or individual

under whose care the child is in custody; and

(d) That the Department, child-placement or child-caring agency is

authorized to give its consent

CHANGE OF NAME (sec. 10)

In case the petition also prays for change of name, the title or caption must
contain (sec. 10):

(a) The registered name of the child;

(b) Aliases or other names by which the child has been known; and

13
(c) The full name by which the child is to be known.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THE PETITION-Escalante done

The following documents shall be attached to the petition (sec. 11):

A. Birth, baptismal or foundling certificate, as the case may be, and school
records showing the name, age and residence of the adoptee;

B. Affidavit of consent of the following:

1. The adoptee, if ten (10) years of age or over;

2. The biological parents of the child, if known, or the legal guardian, or the
child-placement agency, child-caring agency, or the proper government
instrumentality which has legal custody of the child;

3. The legitimate and adopted children of the adopter and of the adoptee, if
any, who are ten (10) years of age or over;

4. The illegitimate children of the adopter living with him who are ten (10)
years of age or over; and

5. The spouse, if any, of the adopter or adoptee.

C. Child study report on the adoptee and his biological parents;

D. If the petitioner is an alien, certification by his diplomatic or consular

office or any appropriate government agency that he has the legal capacity to
adopt in his country and that his government allows the adoptee to enter his
country as his own adopted child unless exempted;

E. Home study report on the adopters. If the adopter is an alien or residing

abroad but qualified to adopt, the home study report by a foreign adoption
agency duly accredited by the Inter-Country Adoption Board; and

F. Decree of annulment, nullity or legal separation of the adopter as well as

that of the biological parents of the adoptee, if any.

i. Section 12-16. Procedure - EVANGELISTA

j. Section 17. Book of Adoptions - EVANGELISTA
k. Section 18. Confidential nature of proceedings and records -
EVANGELISTA

14
Part 3. Rules on Inter-Country Adoption –
Basis: R.A. 8043 – Inter-Country Adoption Act
a. Inter-Country Adoption - EVANGELISTA

b. Where to file petition

Sec.10 of R.A. No. 8043 provides that an application to adopt a Filipino

child shall be filed either with the;

1. Philippine Regional Trial Court (Family Court) having jurisdiction

over the child, or
2. with the Board (Inter-Country Adoption Board), through an
intermediate agency, whether governmental or an authorized and
accredited agency, in the country of the prospective adoptive parents.
After securing the Certification from the DSWD that the child is legally
available for adoption, the application may be filed on the venues mentioned
above.

c. Section 4. Inter- Country adoption board -

As provided under Sec.4, R.A. No. 8043, the Inter-Country Adoption Board
has the power to act as central authority in matters relating to inter-country
adoption. As such, It is the : POLICY-MAKING BODY in consultation with
the appropriate government agencies to carry-out the provisions under the
law.

The following are the primary duties and powers given to them:
1. Protect the Filipino child from abuse, exploitation, trafficking and/or
sale or any other practice in connection with adoption which is
harmful, detrimental, or prejudicial to the child;
2. Collect, maintain, and preserve confidential information about the
child and the adoptive parents;
3. Monitor, follow up, and facilitate completion of adoption of the child
through authorized and accredited agency;
4. Prevent improper financial or other gain in connection with an
adoption and deter improper practices contrary to this Act;
5. Promote the development of adoption services including post-legal
adoption;
6. License and accredit child-caring/placement agencies and collaborate
with them in the placement of Filipino children;
7. Accredit and authorize foreign adoption agency in the placement of
Filipino children in their own country; and
8. Cancel the license to operate and blacklist the child-caring and

15
 placement agency or adoptive agency involved from the accreditation
list of the Board upon a finding of violation of any provision under
this Act.

Also, there is an enumeration of all the powers given to ICAB under Sec. 6
of R.A. No. 8043. This enumeration is not exclusive because the law had
given the Board to create policies it views necessary to carry out their
functions in accordance to its policy-making power.

d. Section 5. Composition of the Inter-Country Board -

Provided under Sec. 5, R.A. No. 8043, the Board shall be composed of:
1. Secretary of the Department as ex officio Chairman; and
2. 6 other members to be appointed by the President for a non-renewable
term of six (6) years.

The 6 other members have a qualification. Provided that there should be

appointed one (1) psychiatrist or psychologist, two (2) lawyers who shall
have at least the qualifications of a regional trial court judge, one (1)
registered social worker and two (2) representatives from non-governmental
organizations engaged in child-caring and placement activities.

What is their Compensation?

The members of the Board shall receive a per diem allowance of One
thousand five hundred pesos (Php 1,500.00) for each meeting attended by
them. Provided further, That no compensation shall be paid for more than
four (4) meetings a month.

How meetings are done?

1. Quorum -a majority of four (4) members of the Board shall constitute
a quorum.
2. Executive Committee refers to three (3) Board members present who
can do business subject to ratification of the Board in the succeeding
meeting.

e. Section 8. Who may be adopted -

Under Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 8043, Only a legally free child may be the subject
of inter-country adoption. In order that such child may be considered for
placement, the following documents must be submitted to the Inter-Country
Adoption Board:
1. Child study;
2. Birth certificate/foundling certificate;
3. Deed of voluntary commitment/decree of abandonment/death
certificate of parents; Medical evaluation /history;
4. Psychological evaluation, as necessary; and
5. Recent photo of the child.

16
What is a legally free child?
It refers to a child who has been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to
the Department or to a duly licensed and accredited child-placing or child-
caring agency, freed of the parental authority of his/her biological parents or
guardians or adopters in case of rescission of adoption.\

f. Section 9. Who may adopt -

Sec. 9. Who May Adopt. — An alien or a Filipino citizen permanently

residing abroad may file an application for inter-country adoption of a
Filipino child if he/she:

(a) is at least twenty-seven (27) years of age and at least sixteen (16) years
older than the child to be adopted, at the time of application unless the
adopter is the parent by nature of the child to be adopted or the spouse of
such parent:

(b) if married, his/her spouse must jointly file for the adoption;

(c) has the capacity to act and assume all rights and responsibilities of
parental authority under his national laws, and has undergone the
appropriate counseling from an accredited counselor in his/her country;

(d) has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;

(e) is eligible to adopt under his/her national law;

(f) is in a position to provide the proper care and support and to give the
necessary moral values and example to all his children, including the child
to be adopted;

(g) agrees to uphold the basic rights of the child as embodied under
Philippine laws, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to
abide by the rules and regulations issued to implement the provisions of this
Act;

(h) comes from a country with whom the Philippines has diplomatic
relations and whose government maintains a similarly authorized and
accredited agency and that adoption is allowed under his/her national laws;
and

(i) possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications

provided herein and in other applicable Philippine laws.

> Necessity of written consent for adoption in inter- country adoption

The written consent of the following is necessary for adoption:

1. Written consent to the adoption in the form of a sworn statement by the

17
biological and/or adopted children of the applicants who are ten (10) years
of age or over, to be attached to the application filed with the Family Court
or Inter- Country Adoption Board (Sec. 28, Art. 8, Amended Implementing
Rules and Regulations of RA 8043); and

2. If a satisfactory pre-adoptive relationship is formed between the applicant

and the child, the written consent to the adoption executed by the DSWD is
required. (Sec. 50, Art. Art. 8, Amended Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 8043)

g. Section 10. Application shall be supported …

Sec. 10. Where to File Application. — An application to adopt a Filipino

child shall be filed either with the Philippine Regional Trial Court having
jurisdiction over the child, or with the Board, through an intermediate
agency, whether governmental or an authorized and accredited agency,
in the country of the prospective adoptive parents, which application shall be
in accordance with the requirements as set forth in the implementing rules
and regulations to be promulgated by the Board.

The application shall be supported by the following documents written and

officially translated in English.

(a) Birth certificate of applicant(s);

(b) Marriage contract, if married, and divorce decree, if applicable;

(c) Written consent of their biological or adoptive children above ten (10)
years of age, in the form of sworn statement;

(d) Physical, medical and psychological evaluation by a duly licensed

physician and psychologist;

(e) Income tax returns or any document showing the financial capability of
the applicant(s);

(f) Police clearance of applicant(s);

(g) Character reference from the local church/minister, the applicant's

employer and a member of the immediate community who have known the
applicant(s) for at least five (5) years; and

(h) Recent postcard-size pictures of the applicant(s) and his immediate

family;

The Rules of Court shall apply in case of adoption by judicial proceedings.

18
h. “Best interest of the minor” standard: concept – A.M. No. 03-04-04-
SC; Section 14 -

Factors to consider in determining custody. - In awarding custody, the

court shall consider the best interests of the minor and shall give
paramount consideration to his material and moral welfare.
The best interests of the minor refer to the totality of the circumstances and
conditions as are most congenial to the survival, protection, and feelings of
security of the minor encouraging to his physical, psychological and
emotional development. It also means the least detrimental available
alternative for safeguarding the growth and development of the minor.
The court shall also consider the following:
(a) Any extrajudicial agreement which the parties may have bound
themselves to comply with respecting the rights of the minor to maintain
direct contact with the non custodial parent on a regular basis, except when
there is an existing threat or danger of physical, mental, sexual or emotional
violence which endangers the safety and best interests of the minor;
(b) The desire and ability of one parent to foster an open and loving
relationship between the minor and the other parent;
(c) The health, safety and welfare of the minor;
(d) Any history of child or spousal abuse by the person seeking custody or
who has had any filial relationship with the minor, including anyone
courting the parent;
(e) The nature and frequency of contact with both parents;
(f) Habitual use of alcohol, dangerous drugs or regulated substances;
(g) Marital misconduct;
(h) The most suitable physical, emotional, spiritual, psychological and
educational environment for the holistic development and growth of the
minor; and
(i) The preference of the minor over seven years of age and of sufficient
discernment, unless the parent chosen is unfit.

19
 JURISPRUDENCE
CASE DIGEST:

Anonymous v. Curamen,
AM P-08-2549, June 18, 2010, 621 SCRA 212

FACTS:

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received an anonymous

complaint charging respondent with falsification of a public document and
simulation of birth. The complaint alleged that respondent registered the
birth of a child supposedly named Rica Mae Baldonado Curamen in the
local civil registry of Rizal, Nueva Ecija.

Complainant submitted the child’s purported birth certificate to show

respondent misrepresented that she was the child’s biological mother and her
husband, Ricardo Curamen, was the biological father. Complainant claimed
respondent was, in fact, the child’s maternal grandmother. Complainant
submitted the child’s original birth certificate to show that the child’s real
name was Rinea Mae Curamen Aquino and that her parents were spouses
Olga Mae Baldonado Curamen Aquino and Jun Aquino. According to
complainant, respondent included the child as additional dependent in her
income tax declaration.

In her Comment, respondent admitted that the real parents of the child were
spouses Olga Mae Baldonado Curamen and Jun Aquino. Respondent
claimed that the child’s parents, being unemployed, were unable to support
themselves let alone their child. She asserted that the child’s parents actually
depended on her and her husband for support. According to respondent, it
was the child’s parents themselves who proposed to register the birth of the
child anew. Respondent insisted she had no intention to conceal the true
identity of the child. Respondent justified her act as an example of a
common practice among Filipinos to extend help to family members. As to
the alleged falsification of her income tax return, respondent denied listing
the child as additional dependent.

ISSUE:

WON Emma Baldonado Curamen, Court Interpreter I, is guilty of

falsification of her grand daughters birth certificate.

HELD: YES.

20
With respect to the alleged falsification of the child’s birth certificate, we
find respondent guilty of dishonesty and falsification of a public document.
A birth certificate, being a public document, serves as prima facie evidence
of filiation. The making of a false statement therein constitutes dishonesty
and falsification of a public document.

Respondent cannot escape liability by claiming that she did not have any
intention to conceal the identity of the child nor cause the loss of any trace as
to the child’s true filiation to the child’s prejudice. When public documents
are falsified, the intent to injure a third person need not be present
because the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith
and the destruction of the truth the document proclaims.

Respondent’s justification for her act – that the true parents of the child are
unable to support the child as they are fully dependent on respondent for
their own support – is an affront to common sense. It taxes one’s
imagination how concealment of the child’s true parents, through
falsification of the child’s birth certificate, will make it easier for respondent
to support the child. Respondent can very well continue supporting the child
as her own, as is the practice in Filipino families, without having to tamper
with the child’s birth certificate.

DSWD vs. Judge Belen

A.M. RTJ-96-1362, July 18, 1997

FACTS:

The spouses Desiderio Soriano and Aurora Bernardo-Soriano, both of whom

are naturalized American citizens, filed a verified petition for adoption of
their niece, the minor Zhedell Bernardo Ibea, which was docketed as Special
Proceeding No. 5830 of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan,
and assigned to Branch 38 thereof. In due time, respondent Judge Belen
granted the petition in a decision dated June 25, 1992, after finding that
petitioner spouses were highly qualified to adopt the child as their own.

However, when the minor Zhedell Bernardo Ibea sought to obtain the
requisite travel clearance from the DSWD in order to join her adoptive
parents in the United States, the department uncovered what it considered as
an anomalous adoption decree regarding said minor. It turned out that the
DSWD did not have any record in its files regarding the adoption and that
there was never any order from respondent judge for the DSWD to conduct a
"Home and Child Study Report" in the case. Furthermore, there was no
directive from respondent judge for the social welfare officer of the lower
court to coordinate with the DSWD on the matter of the required reports for
said minor's adoption.

As the adoption never passed through the DSWD, it filed the present

21
administrative complaint against respondent judge charging him with
violating Article 33 of Presidential Decree No. 603 which requires, inter
alia, that petitions for adoption shall be granted only after the DSWD has
conducted and submitted a case study of the adoptee, the natural parents and
the adoptive parents.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondent judge is guilty with violating Article 33 of

Presidential Decree No. 603 otherwise known as The Child and Youth
Welfare Code, and the corresponding Supreme Court circular

HELD:

Yes. By respondent's failure to do so, he may well have wittingly or

unwittingly placed in jeopardy the welfare and future of the child whose
adoption was under consideration. Adoption, after all, is in a large measure a
legal device by which a better future may be accorded an unfortunate child
like Zhedell Bernardo Ibea in this case. The proper course that respondent
judge should have taken was to notify DSWD at the outset about the
commencement of Special Proceeding No. 5830 so that the corresponding
case study could have been accordingly conducted by said department which
undoubtedly has the necessary competence, more than that possessed by the
court social welfare officer, to make the proper recommendation. Moreover,
respondent judge should never have merely presumed that it was routinary
for the social welfare officer to coordinate with the DSWD regarding the
adoption.

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim

G.R. No. 168992-93. May 21, 2009, 588 SCRA 98

FACTS:

Petitioner Monina Lim, who was an optometrist, was married with Primo
Lim. They were childless. Minor children, whose parents were unknown,
were entrusted to them by a certain Lucia Ayuban. Being so eager to have a
child of their own, petitioner and Primo registered the children to make it
appear that they are the children’s parents. The children were named
Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude P. Lim.

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, Primo died. On 27 December 2000, petitioner married Angel Olario,
an American citizen.

Petitioner decided to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty given

22
under R.A. No. 8552 to individuals who simulated the birth of a child. In
2002, she filed separate petitions 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 and her husband
including Michael and Olario gave their consent to the adoption executed in
an affidavit.

The trial court ruled that since petitioner had remarried, petitioner should
have filed the petition jointly with her new husband. The trial court ruled
that joint adoption by the husband and the wife is mandatory citing Section
7(c), Article III of R.A. No. 8552 and Article 185 of the Family Code.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner, who has remarried, can singly adopt

RULING:

The time the petitions were filed, petitioner had already remarried.
Husband and wife shall jointly adopt except in three instances which were
not present in the case at bar. In case spouses jointly adopt, they shall
jointly exercise parental authority. The use of the word “shall” signify 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 Section 7 of R.A. No.
8552. The requirements on residency and certification of the alien’s
qualification to adopt cannot likewise be waived pursuant to Section 7.
Parental authority is merely just one of the effects of legal adoption. It
includes caring and rearing the children for civic consciousness and
efficiency and development of their moral, mental and physical character
and well-being.

In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia

GR 148311, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 541

FACTS:

Honorato Catindig filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child

Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia. He prayed that the child's middle name
Astorga be changed to Garcia, her mother's surname, and that her surname
Garcia be changed to Catindig, his surname.

Trial court granted the petition and declared Stephanie as his legitimate child
and heir, and pursuant to Article 189 of the Family Code, she is now known
as Stephanie Nathy Catindig.

Honorato filed a motion for clarification and/or reconsideration that

23
Stephanie should be allowed to use the surname Garcia as her middle name.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, agreed with
Honorato for her relationship with her natural mother should be maintained
and preserved, to prevent any confusion and hardship in the future, and
under Article 189 she remains to be an intestate heir of her mother.

ISSUE: Whether an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural father,

use the surname of her natural mother as her middle name

RULING:

Yes. there is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child adopted by her natural

father, like Stephanie, to use, as middle name her mother’s surname, we find
no reason why she should not be allowed to do so. Being a legitimate child
by virtue of her adoption, it follows that Stephanie is entitled to all the rights
provided by law to a legitimate child without discrimination of any kind,
including the right to bear surname of her father and her mother. Stephanie’s
continued use of her mother’s surname as her middle name will maintain her
maternal lineage.

Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by R.A. No. 9255, (An Act
Allowing Illegitimate Children To Use The Surname Of Their Father) is
silent as to what middle name a child may use. Article 365 of the New Civil
Code merely provides that “an adopted child shall bear the surname of the
adopter.” Article 189 of the Family Code, enumerating the legal effects of
adoption, is likewise silent on the matter.

Under R.A. No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998), as legitimate child
by virtue of her adoption, Stephanie is entitled to all the rights provided by
law to a legitimate child without discrimination of any kind, including the
right to bear the surname of her father and her mother.

Lahom v. Sibulo

G.R. No. 143989, July 14, 2003, 406 SCRA 135

FACTS:

The petitioner had adopted her nephew when he was two years old. 17 years
later, the petitioner commenced proceedings at a regional court to rescind
the adoption because the adoptee refused to change his original surname to
his adopters' surname and because their relationships had deteriorated and
her adopted son had been indifferent towards her, failed to show any care or
concern and only visited her once a year. The petitioner therefore claimed
that there was no prevailing familial relationship and for all purposes their
legal relationship should also be annulled. The adoptee respondent opposed
the petition to rescind the adoption. Prior to the institution of the case, in
1998, R.A. No. 8552 went into effect. The new statute deleted from the law

24
the right of adopters to rescind a decree of adoption (Section 19 of Article
VI) 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.

The new law states that only the adoptee may rescind an adoption for
reasons of abuse or abandonment. The petitioner argued that new laws
should not be applied retrospectively and that she still possess the right to
rescind the adoption under the old law.

The trial court rejected the petition on the basis that the new law had
removed an adopter's right to rescind an adoption. In addition, even if the
petitioner had the right under the old law to rescind the adoption, such right
had expired with the passage of time, as it needed to be exercised within five
years.

ISSUE:

Whether the subject adoption may still be revoked or rescinded by an

adopter after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552; if in the affirmative, whether
the adopter’s action already prescribed

RULING:

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. In this case, it
was months after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552 that Lahom filed an action
to revoke the decree of adoption granted in 1972. By then the new law had
already abrogated and repealed the right of the adopter under the New Civil
Code and the Family Code to rescind a decree of adoption. So the rescission
of the adoption decree, having been initiated by Lahom after R.A. No. 8552
had come into force, could no longer be pursued.

Besides, even before the passage of R.A. No. 8552, an action to set aside the
adoption is subject to the five year bar rule under Rule 100 of the Rules of
Court and that 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. Rights are considered vested when the right to the
enjoyment is a present interest, absolute, unconditional and perfect or fixed
and irrefutable. The concept of a "vested right" is a consequence of the
constitutional guarantee of due process that expresses a present fixed interest
which in right reason and natural justice is protected against arbitrary state
action. While adoption has often been referred to in the context of a "right",
it is not naturally innate or fundamental but rather a right merely created by
statute. It is more of a privilege that is governed by the state's determination
on what it may deem to be for the best interest and welfare of the child.
Matters relating to adoption, including the withdrawal of the right of the

25
adopter to nullify the adoption decree, are subject to State regulation.
Concomitantly, a right of action given by a statute may be taken away at any
time before it has been exercised.

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

DIDIWATA RAMOS LANDINGIN vs. REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 164948 June 27, 2006

Facts:

Diwata Ramos Landingin, a citizen of the United States of America (USA),

of Filipino parentage and a resident of Guam, USA, filed a petition for the
adoption of minors Elaine Dizon Ramos, Elma Dizon Ramos and Eugene
Dizon Ramos who was born on August 31, 1986, September 7, 1987, and
August 5, 1989. The minors are the natural children of Manuel Ramos,
petitioner’s brother (deceased), and Amelia Ramos- who went to Italy,
remarried and now has two children by her second marriage and no longer
communicated with her children.

Issue:

Is the written consent of a Biological Parent necessary?

Held:

Yes, the general requirement of consent and notice of the natural parents is
intended to protect the natural parental relationship from unwarranted
interference by interlopers and to insure the opportunity to safeguard the best
interests of the child in the manner of the proposed adoption.

Thus, the written consent of the biological parents is indispensable for

the validity of a decree of adoption. Indeed, the natural right of a parent to
his child requires that his consent must be obtained before his parental rights
and duties may be terminated and re-established in adoptive parents. Here,
the petitioner failed to submit the written consent of Amelia Ramos to the
adoption.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. JOSE R.

26
HERNANDEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 158, Pasig City and SPOUSES VAN MUNSON y
NAVARRO and REGINA MUNSON y ANDRADE

G.R. No. 117209 February 9, 1996

Facts:

On March 10, 1994, herein private respondent spouses, Van Munson y

Navarro and Regina Munson y Andrade, filed a p petition to adopt the minor
Kevin Earl Bartolome Moran, duly alleging therein the jurisdictional facts
required by Rule 99 of the Rules of Court for adoption, their qualifications
as and fitness to be adoptive parents, as well as the circumstances under and
by reason of which the adoption of the a forenamed minor was sought. In the
very same petition, private respondents prayed for the change of the first
name or said minor adoptee to Aaron Joseph, the same being the name with
which he was baptized in keeping with religious tradition and by which he
has been called by his adoptive family, relatives and friends since May 6,
1993 when he arrived at private respondents' residence.

The RTC granted the petition for adoption of Kevin Earl Bartolome Moran
and also the prayer for the change of the first name of said adoptee to Aaron
Joseph to complement the surname Munson y Andrade which he acquired
consequent to his adoption.

Petitioner argues that a petition for adoption and a petition for change of
name are two special proceedings which, in substance and purpose, are
different from and are not related to each other, being respectively governed
by distinct sets of law and rules.

Issue:

Whether Or Not the respondent judge erred in granting prayer for the change
of the given or proper name if the adoptee in a petition for adoption.

HELD:

Par (1), Art. 189 of the Family Code provide one of the legal effects of
adoption:

(1) For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to be a legitimate child
of the adopters and both shall acquire the reciprocal rights and obligations
arising from the relationship of parent and child, including the right of the
adopted to use the surname of the adopters;

No. The law allows the adoptee, as a matter of right and obligation, to bear

27
the surname of the adopter, upon issuance of the decree of adoption. It is the
change of the adoptee’s surname to follow that of the adopter which is the
natural and necessary consequence of a grant of adoption and must
specifically be contained in the order of the court, in fact, even if not prayed
for by the petitioner.

However, the given or proper name, also known as the first or Christian
name, of the adoptee must remain as it was originally registered in the civil
register. The creation of an adoptive relationship does not confer upon the
adopter a license to change the adoptee’s registered Christian or first name.
The automatic change thereof, premised solely upon the adoption thus
granted, is beyond the purview of a decree of adoption. Neither is it a mere
incident in nor an adjunct of an adoption proceeding, such that a prayer
therefore furtively inserted in a petition for adoption, as in this case, cannot
properly be granted.

Ching Leng v. Galang

G.R. No. L—11931, Oct. 27, 1958

Facts:

Ching Leng, Chinese was granted Philippine citizenship on May 2,

1950 by the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Later, his wife filed a petition
for the adoption of his five illegitimate minor children. The adoption was
allowed. Ching Leng then requested the Commissioner of Immigration for
the cancellation of the alien certificates of registration of said minors on the
theory that they were now Filipino citizens. Commissioner of Immigration
Galang denied the request citing Opinion No. 269 of the Secretary of Justice
dated Oct. 9, 1954, which ruled that adoption does not effect a change of
nationality of the adopted. Ching Leng then filed this action to compel
Galang to cancel said alien certificates.

Ruling:

The alien certificates of registration will not be cancelled because the

adopted children have Not become Filipinos, in view of the following
reasons;

(a) While generally an adopted child has the rights of a legitimate child, still
citizenship is not a right but a mere privilege;

(b) Granting that citizenship is a right, it is not enumerated as such as among

the rights of legitimate children, and therefore is not one of those alluded to
in the Civil Code (now Family Code);

(c) Acquisition of citizenship partakes of the character of naturalization and

this matter is regulated not by the Civil Code but by special laws. (Art. 49,
Civil Code)

28
(d) Under Sec. 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law, the words “minor
children” refer generally to legitimate children of the mother for in the
latter case, they follow her nationality, not that of the illegitimate father.

(e) If adoption by a natural-born Filipino does not vest Philippine nationality

in the adopted child, there is no plausible reason why adoption by a
naturalized Filipino should have a more far-reaching effect; and

(f) If adoption can confer Philippine nationality on the adopted, many people
will resort to this method rather than to the more difficult process of formal
naturalization proceedings.

Whether or not the illegitimate Chinese children in this case contained to be

regarded as Chinese by China is a matter that of course depends on Chinese
law. What is clear is that under our law, they are not Filipino citizens.

Republic v. Miller

G.R. No. 125932, Apr 21, 1999

Facts:

On July 29, 1988, the SPs. Miller, both American citizens, filed with
the RTC, Angeles City, a verified petition to adopt the minor Michael
Magno Madayag. They were childless and ‘do not expect to have sibling
out of their union on account of a medical problem of the wife.’ The minor
Michael Magno Madayag is the legitimate son of Marcelo S. Madayag, Jr.
and Zenaida Magno. He was born on July 14, 1987 but since August of the
same year, he had been in the custody of the Sps. Miller. Poverty and deep
concern for the future of their minor son prompted the natural parents who
have no visible means of livelihood to have their child adopted by the Sps.
Miller. They executed affidavits giving their irrevocable consent to the
adoption by the Spouses Miller. RTC granted the petition. The SolGen
appealed the case to the CA which certified the case to the Supreme Court
on the ground that the issue raised only questions of law.

Issue:

WON aliens may be allowed to adopt a Filipino child which was prohibited
under the Family Code which took effect on Aug. 3, 1985.

Ruling: Yes.

Alien qualified to adopt under the Child and Youth Welfare Code,
which was in force at the time of the filing of the petition, acquired a vested
right which could not be affected by the subsequent enactment of a new law
disqualifying him. The enactment of the Family Code, effective August 3,

29
1988, will not impair the right of respondents who are aliens to adopt a
Filipino child because the right has become vested at the time of filing of the
petition for adoption and shall be governed by the law then in force. A
vested right is one whose existence, effectivity and extent does not depend
upon events foreign to the will of the holder.

Republic v. CA, Hughes

G.R. No. 100835, Oct. 26, 1993

Facts:

James Anthony Hughes, a natural born citizen of the United States of

America, married Lenita Mabunay Hughes, a Filipino citizen, who herself
was later naturalized as a citizen of that country. On 29 June 1990, the
spouses jointly filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles
City, Branch 60, to adopt Ma. Cecilia, Neil and Mario, all surnamed
Mabunay, minor niece and nephews of Lenita, who had been living with the
couple even prior to the filing of the petition. The minors, as well as their
parents, gave consent to the adoption.chanrobles law l

29 November 1990, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision granting

the petition. A Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed with this Court,
assailing the trial court’s decision. This Court referred the case to the Court
of Appeals which, on 09 July 1991, affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Issue:

WON Sps. James Anthony Hughes and Lenita Mabunay Hughes are
qualified to adopt under Philippine Law.

Ruling: NO. James Anthony is not qualified to adopt. Art. 184 of the
Family Code expressly identified those who may not adopt. Paragraph 3
thereof provides that ‘an alien may not adopt except in the following cases;

(a) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by

consanguinity;

(b) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his or her Filipino
spouse; or

(c) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly
with his or her spouse a relative by consanguinity of the latter.

Aliens not included in the foregoing exceptions may adopt Filipino children
in accordance with the rules on inter-Country adoption as may be provided
by law. While James Anthony unquestionably is not permitted to adopt
under any of the exceptional cases enumerated above, Lenita can however
qualify pursuant to the first exception of paragraph 3 of Art. 184 of the FC.

30
Still however, Art. 185 of FC requires a joint adoption by the husband and
the wife, a condition that must be read along together with Art. 184.

Republic v. Toledano

G.R. No. 94147, June 8, 1994

Facts:

On February 21, 1990, in a verified petition filed before the Regional

Court of Iba, Zambales, under the sala of respondent judge Toledano, private
respondents spouses Clouse sought to adopt the minor, Solomon Joseph
Alcala, the younger brother of private respondent Evelyn A. Clouse. Private
respondent Alvin A. Clouse is a natural born citizen of the United States of
America. He married Evelyn, a Filipino on June 4, 1981 at Olongapo City.
On August 19, 1988, Evelyn became a naturalized citizen of the United
States of America in Guam. They are physically, mentally, morally, and
financially capable of adopting Solomon, a twelve (12) year old minor., who
had been under the care and custody of private respondents since 1981. The
minor’s mother, Nely Alcala, a widow, consented to the adoption due to
poverty and inability to support and educate her son. Respondent judge
rendered a decision granting the petition for adoption. SolGen appealed the
case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

WON the lower court erred in granting the petition on the ground that the
adopters are disqualified to adopt.

Ruling: Yes.

Under Articles 184 and 185 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 209, otherwise
known as "The Family Code of the Philippines", private respondents spouses
Clouse are clearly barred from adopting Solomon Joseph Alcala. Without
doubt, Alvin is not qualified to adopt under any of the exceptional cases
provided under Art. 184, FC. In the first place, he is not a former Filipino
citizen but a natural born citizen of the United States of America. In the
second place, Solomon Joseph Alcala is neither his relative by consanguinity
nor the legitimate child of his spouse. In the third place, when private
respondents spouses Clouse jointly filed the petition to adopt Solomon
Joseph Alcala on February 21, 1990, private respondent Evelyn A. Clouse
was no longer a Filipino citizen. She lost her Filipino citizenship when she
was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1988. while it may appear
that she is qualified to adopt pursuant to the above provision of law.
However, Art. 185 of the same Code, mandates a joint adoption by the
husband and wife.

31
Part 4. RULE 100: Rescission of Adoption –
Basis: Sections 19- 24 of A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC

Section 19. Rescission of Adoption of the Adoptee.—

The petition shall be verified and filed by the adoptee who is over eighteen
(18) years of age, or with the assistance of the Department, if he is a minor,
or if he is over eighteen (18) years of age but is incapacitated, by his
guardian or counsel.

The adoption may be rescinded based on any of the following grounds

committed by the adopter:

1) repeated physical and verbal maltreatment by the adopter despite

having undergone counseling;

2) attempt on the life of the adoptee;

3) sexual assault or violence; or

4) abandonment or failure to comply with parental obligations.

Adoption, being in the best interests of the child, shall not be subject to
rescission by the adopter. However, the adopter may disinherit the adoptee
for causes provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code.

FORM OF PETITION
- Verified
- With assistance of guardian, counsel or DSWD for minor or
incapacitated adoptees.

WHO MAY FILE RESCISSION

1. Adoptee
- Over 18 years of age
- Over 18 but incapacitated with the assistance of guardian or
counsel
- Minor but with the assistance of the DSWD
2. Adopter not allowed to rescind adoptee but may only disinherit
the adoptee for causes under Article 919 of the Civil Code.

Art. 919. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance
of children and descendants, legitimate as well as illegitimate:

(1) When a child or descendant has been found guilty of an attempt against
the life of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or ascendants;

(2) When a child or descendant has accused the testator of a crime for which
the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation has
been found groundless;

32
(3) When a child or descendant has been convicted of adultery or
concubinage with the spouse of the testator;

(4) When a child or descendant by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue

influence causes the testator to make a will or to change one already made;

(5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent or ascendant

who disinherits such child or descendant;

(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the child or descendant;

(7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life;

(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil

interdiction.

GROUNDS FOR RESCISSION

1. Repeated physical and verbal maltreatment by the adopter/s

despite having undergone counseling;

2. Attempt on the life of the adoptee;

3. Sexual assault or violence; or

4. Abandonment and failure to comply with parental obligations.

PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD

A. If incapacitated- within 5 years after he reaches the age of majority;

B. If incompetent at the time of the adoption- within five (5) years after
recovery from such incompetency.

Section 20. Venue.—

The petition shall be filed with the Family Court of the city or province
where the adoptee resides.

RULE 100 – Rescission of Adoption; Section 21-24

Section 21. Time within which to file petition.— The adoptee, if

incapacitated, must file the petition for rescission or revocation of adoption
within five (5) years after he reaches the age of majority, or if he was
incompetent at the time of the adoption, within five (5) years after recovery
from such incompetency.

33
In case the adoptee is incapacitated
The adoptee, if incapacitated, must file the petition for rescission or
revocation of adoption within five (5) years after he reaches the age of
majority.

In case the adoptee is incompetent

If he was incompetent at the time of the adoption, within five (5) years
after recovery from such incompetency

Section 22. Order to Answer.— The court shall issue an order requiring the
adverse party to answer the petition within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a
copy thereof. The order and copy of the petition shall be served on the
adverse party in such manner as the court may direct.

- The court does not have jurisdiction to annul after the period fixed by the
Rule, a decree of adoption. For reasons of public order, judicial litigations
must have an end; hence decisions must not be changed after the expiration
of the period, it being beyond the jurisdiction or control of the courts.

Effects of Judgment of Rescission

If the court finds that the allegations of the petition are true, it shall render
judgment ordering:

1.The Rescission of adoption, with or without cost as justice requires;

2.Parental authority or biological parent or legal custody of DSWD will be
restored if the adoptee is still a minor or incapacitated;
3.Reciprocal rights and obligations of adoptee is still a minor or
incapacitated;
4.Successional rights shall revert to its status prior to adoption, as of the date
of judgment of judicial rescission. Vested rights acquired prior to judicial
rescission shall be respected;
5.The adoptee to use the name stated in his original birth or foundling
certificate; and
6.Civil registrar where the adoption decree was registered to cancel the new
birth certificate of the adoptee and reinstate his original birth or foundling
certificate.

Section 23. Judgment.— If the court finds that the allegations of the
petition are true, it shall render judgment ordering the rescission of adoption,
with or without costs, as justice requires.
The court shall order that the parental authority of the biological parent of
the adoptee, if known, or the legal custody of the Department shall be
restored if the adoptee is still a minor or incapacitated and declare that the
reciprocal rights and obligations of the adopter and the adoptee to each other
shall be extinguished.
The court shall further declare that successional rights shall revert to its
status prior to adoption, as of the date of judgment of judicial rescission.
Vested rights acquired prior to judicial rescission shall be respected.

34
It shall also order the adoptee to use the name stated in his original birth or
foundling certificate.
The court shall further order the Civil Registrar where the adoption decree
was registered to cancel the new birth certificate of the adoptee and reinstate
his original birth or foundling certificate.

Section 24. Service of Judgment.— A certified true copy of the judgment

together with a certificate of finality issued by the Branch Clerk of the Court
which rendered the decision in accordance with the preceding Section shall
be served by the petitioner upon the Civil Registrar concerned within thirty
(30) days from receipt of the certificate of finality. The Civil Registrar shall
forthwith enter the rescission decree in the register and submit proof of
compliance to the court issuing the decree and the Clerk of Court within
thirty (30) days from receipt of the decree.
The Clerk of Court shall enter the compliance in accordance with Section 17
hereof.

-A certified true copy of the judgment together with a certificate of finality

issued by the Branch of Clerk of Court which rendered the decision in
accordance with the preceding Section shall be served by the petitioner upon
the Civil Registrar concerned within thirty (30) days from receipt of the
certificate of finality.

-The Civil Registrar shall forthwith enter the rescission decree in the register
and submit proof of compliance to the court issuing the decree and the Clerk
of Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decree.

Rules on Venue

General Rule: In domestic adoption, where the petitioner, either the

prospective adoptive parent or adoptee, in case of rescission resides.

Exception: Inter-Country adoption, where the adoptee resides or may be

found.

Kind of Adoption Venue Court Basis

Domestic Where the Family court of the Sec. 6
Adoption prospective province or city
adoptive parents
resides
Rescission Where the adoptee Family court of the Sec. 20
Adoption resides province or city
Inter-Country Where the adoptee Family court or Sec. 28
Adoption resides or may be Inter-Country
found Adoption Board

RULE 101 – Proceedings for hospitalization of insane person

35
Applicability of the Rule

-The rule is applicable only where the hospitalization of the insane person
is for the public welfare or for the welfare of said person, who, in the
judgment of the Secretary of Health, is insane provided that the one having
charge of him is opposed to such confinement.

a.Procedure for the hospitalization of insane persons

Sec. 1. Venue; Petition for commitment. -

A petition for the commitment of a person to a hospital or other place for the
insane may be filed with the Court of First Instance of the province where
the person alleged to be insane is found. The petition shall be filed by the
Director of Health in the all cases where, in his opinion, such commitment is
for the public welfare, or for the welfare of said person who, in his
judgment, is insane, and such person or the one having charged of him is
opposed to his being taken to a hospital or other place for the insane.

This is applicable only when the hospitalization of the insane person is for
the public welfare or for the welfare of said person provided that the one
who has charge of him is opposed to such confinement.

Insanity denotes a condition of the mind which is so impaired in function or

so deranged as to induce a deviation from normal conduct in the person so
afflicted; unsound, deranged, delirious or distracted mind.

The fact that the person is acting crazy is not conclusive that he is insane.
The popular meaning of crazy is not synonymous with the legal term of
insane, unsound mind, idiot, or lunatic.

VENUE:

36
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the province or city where the person
alleged to be insane is found.

WHO MAY FILE:

Secretary of Health with the assistance of the city or provincial prosecutor.

REQUISITES FOR FILING:

1. Secretary of Health is of the opinion that the commitment of the person

alleged to be insane is for public welfare or for the welfare of said person;
and

2. Such person or the one having charge of him opposed to his being taken
to a hospital or other place for insane person such as an asylum.

Sec. 2. Order for hearing. - If the petition filed is sufficient in form and
substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix
a date for the hearing thereof, and copy of such order shall be served on the
person alleged to be insane, and to the one having charge of him, or on such
of his relatives residing in the province or city as the judge may deem
proper. The court shall furthermore order the sheriff to produce the alleged
insane person, if possible, on the
date of the hearing.

PROCEDURE FOR THE COMMITMENT OF AN INSANE PERSON

UPON THE FILING OF THE PETITION:

1. The court shall set the petition for hearing.

2. The court shall fix the date and place for the hearing where all concerned
may appear to contest the petition.

3. Copies of the notice shall be served upon:

a. The person alleged to be insane
b. The one having charge of him or the relatives residing in the
province/city as the judge may deem proper.

4. The Court shall order the sheriff to produce the alleged insane person(if
possible) on the date of the hearing.

5. upon satisfactory proof that the commitment is necessary and that his
relatives are unable to take proper custody and care of him, the court shall
order his commitment in a hospital/asylum.

6. The court shall make proper provisions for the custody of the property or
money belonging to the insane until a guardian is properly appointed.

RIGHT OF THE INSANE PERSON TO NOTICE AND HEARING:

37
Insane person has the right to notice and hearing would render the
proceedings void or at least a good ground for vacating the order of
commitment.

Sec. 3. Hearing and judgment. -

Upon satisfactory proof, in open court on the date fixed in theorder, that the
commitment applied for is for the public welfare or for the welfare of the
insane person, and that his relatives are unable for any reason to take proper
custody and care of him, the court shall order his commitment to such
hospital or other place for the insane as may be recommended by the
Director of Health. The court shall make proper provisions for the custody of
property or money belonging to the insane until a guardian be properly
appointed.

BURDEN OF PROOF:

In all actions and proceedings, the burden of proving insanity is on the

plaintiff who alleges it, but where it is set up as an affirmative defense, the
burden of proving rests on the defendant.

Sec. 4. Discharge of insane. -

When, in the opinion of the Director of Health, the person ordered to be
committed to a hospital or other place for the insane is temporarily or
permanently cured, or may be released without danger he may file the proper
petition with the Court of First Instance which ordered the commitment.

WHEN MAY A PERSON COMMITTED TO A HOSPITAL BE

DISCHARGED:

The Secretary of Health may file a petition in the RTC which ordered the
commitment when he is of the opinion that the person is permanently or
temporarily cured or may be released without danger.

The proceedings for restoration of capacity should be in the court in which

proceedings were had resulting in the adjudication of incompetency. It is not
a new proceeding but as a continuance of the original guardianship
proceedings.

The Secretary of Health cannot order release of the judicially-committed

insane without the approval of the RTC and the RTC cannot order release
without the recommendation of the Secretary of Health.

Sec. 5. Assistance of fiscal in the proceeding. -

It shall be the duty of the provincial fiscal or in the City of Manila the fiscal
of the city, to prepare the petition for the Director of Health and represent
him in court in all proceedings arising under the provisions of this rule.

38
DUTY TO BE REPRESENTED:

It shall be the duty of the provincial or city fiscal, now referred as

prosecutor, to prepare the petition for the Secretary of Health and represent
him in court in all proceedings under this Rule.

39