Case Name Tamargo v CA

GR No. | Date G.R. No. 85044 | June 3, 1992

Topic Effects of a decree of adoption

Doctrine Retroactive effect may not be given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon
the adopting parents accruing at a time when adopting parents had no actual or physically
custody over the adopted child. Retroactive effect may perhaps be given to the granting of the
petition for adoption where such is essential to permit the accrual of some benefit or
advantage in favor of the adopted child.
Parties involved MACARIO TAMARGO, CELSO TAMARGO and AURELIA TAMARGO, petitioners vs. HON. COURT
OF APPEALS, THE HON. ARISTON L. RUBIO, RTC Judge, Branch 20, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; VICTOR
BUNDOC; and CLARA BUNDOC, respondents

Ponente FELICIANO, J.

General Summary Adelberto Bundoc, a 10-year old boy, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle which resulted in
the latter’s death. The adopting and natural parents of Jennifer filed a civil complaint for
damages against the natural parents of Adelberto. The natural parents of Adelberto, however,
contends that they should not be the indispensable parties to the suit because the petition to
adopt Adelberto has already been granted, and the adopting parents of Adelberto should be
the indispensable parties. The lower courts dismissed the actions of the petitioners. The
Supreme Court, however, held that the natural parents of Adelberto were the indispensable
parties to the suit.

Facts:
• On 20 October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, a minor, 10 years old, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle causing
injuries that resulted in her death. The natural parents of Tamargo filed a complaint for damages against the
natural parents of Adelberto with whom he was living at the time of the tragic incident.
• In December 1981, spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura filed a petition to adopt Adelberto. The petition was granted
in November 1982 that is after Adelberto had shot and killed Jennifer.
• Adelberto’s parents, in their Answer, claimed that the spouses Rapisura were indispensable parties to the action
since parental authority had shifted to them from the moment the petition for adoption was decreed. Spouses
Tamargo contended that since Adelberto was then actually living with his natural parents, parental authority had
not ceased by mere filing and granting of the petition for adoption. The trial court dismissed the spouses
Tamargo’s petition.

Issue/s:

• Whether the effects of adoption, insofar as parental authority is concerned, may be given retroactive effect so
as to make the adopting parents the indispensable parties in a damage case filed against their adopted child, for
acts committed by the latter, when actual custody was yet lodged with the biological parents

Ruling:

• No.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED DUE COURSE and the Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated 6 September 1988, in C.A.-G.R. No. SP-15016 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners’

UP Law - 1 BGC Eve 2 (2027) / LAW 100

 complaint filed before the trial court is hereby REINSTATED and this case is REMANDED to that court for further
proceedings consistent with this Decision. Costs against respondent Bundoc spouses. This Decision is immediately
executory.

Reasoning:

• Article 221 of the Family Code provides that, “Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be
civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living
in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.”

In the case at bar, parental authority over Adelberto was still lodged with the natural parents at the time the
shooting incident happened. It follows that the natural parents are the indispensable parties to the suit for
damages.

Supreme Court held that parental authority had not been retroactively transferred to and vested in the adopting
parents, at the time the shooting happened. It does not consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree
of the adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at the time when adopting parents
had no actual custody over the adopted child. The retroactive effect may be essential if it permits the accrual of
some benefit or advantage in favor of the adopted child.

UP Law - 1 BGC Eve 2 (2027) / LAW 100