II Lahom v. Sibulo
II Lahom v. Sibulo
*
G.R. No. 143989. July 14, 2003.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
136
137
VITUG, J.:
139
_______________
(1) If the adopted person has attempted against the life of the adopter;
(2) When the adopted minor has abandoned the home of the adopter
for more than three years;
(3) When by other acts the adopted person has definitely repudiated
the adoption. (n)
3 Art. 192. The adopters may petition the court for the judicial
rescission of the adoption in any of the following cases:
140
“On the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit,
Section 5(c) of R.A. No. 8369 confers jurisdiction to this Court,
having been designated Family Court in A.M. No. 99-11-07 SC.
“On the matter of no cause of action, the test on the sufficiency
of the facts alleged in the complaint, is whether or not, admitting
the facts alleged, the Court could render a valid judgment in
accordance with the prayer of said complaint (De Jesus, et al. vs.
Belarmino, et al., 95 Phil. 365).
“Admittedly, Section 19, Article VI of R.A. No. 8552 deleted the
right of an adopter to rescind an adoption earlier granted under
the Family Code. Conformably, on the face of the petition, indeed
there is lack of cause of action.
“Petitioner however, insists that her right to rescind long
acquired under the provisions of the Family Code should be
respected. Assuming for the sake of argument, that petitioner is
entitled to rescind the adoption of respondent granted on May 5,
1972, said right should have been exercised within the period
allowed by the Rules. From the averments in the petition, it
appears clear that the legal grounds for the petition have been
discovered and known to petitioner for more than five (5) years,
prior to the filing of the instant petition on December 1, 1999,
hence, the action if any, had already prescribed. (Sec. 5, Rule 100
Revised Rules of Court)
“WHEREFORE, in view of 4
the foregoing consideration, the
petition is ordered dismissed.”
_______________
(1) If the adopted has committed any act constituting a ground for
disinheriting a descendant; or
(2) When the adopted has abandoned the home of the adopters during
minority for at least one year, or, by some other acts, has definitely
repudiated the adoption. (41a, P.D. No. 603).
141
5
adoption to assure male heirs in the family. The continuity
of the adopter’s family was the primary purpose of adoption
and all matters relating to it basically focused on the rights
of the adopter. There was6
hardly any mention about the
rights of the adopted. Countries, like Greece, France,
Spain and England, in an effort to preserve inheritance7
within the family, neither allowed nor recognized adoption.
It was only much later when adoption was given an
impetus in law and still later when8 the welfare of the child
became a paramount concern. Spain itself which
previously disfavored adoption ultimately relented and
accepted the Roman law concept of adoption which,
subsequently, was to find its way to the archipelago. The
Americans came and introduced their own ideas on
adoption which, unlike most countries in Europe, made9
the
interests of the child an overriding consideration. In the
early part of the century just passed, the rights of children
invited universal attention; the Geneva Declaration of
Rights of the Child of 192410
and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights of 1948, followed by the 11United Nations
Declarations of the Rights of the Child, were written
instruments that would also protect and safeguard the
rights of 12adopted children. The Civil Code of the
Philippines of 1950 on adoption, 13
later modified by the
Child and Youth Welfare Code 14
and then by the Family
Code of the Philippines, gave immediate statutory
acknowledgment to the rights of the adopted. In 1989, the
United Nations initiated the Convention of the Rights of
_______________
5 The Law of Adoption, Morton L. Leavy & Rey Weinbey, 4th Edition
(1979).
6 The Law on Adoption and Surrogate Parenting, Irving J. Sloan (1988).
7Ibid., p.7.
8Id.The earliest adoption statute was reported in Mississippi in 1846.
In 1850, Texas and Vermont, USA passed their general adoption statutes,
followed by Massachusetts and New York in 1851.
9 A Comparative Study of the Adoption Law under the Spanish Civil
Code and the Code of Civil Procedure, 4 Phil. L.J. 313-323 (1918).
10 United Nation General Assembly, Resolution dated 10 December
1948.
11 United Nation General Assembly/44/49 (1989).
12 Presidential Decree No. 386.
13 Presidential Decree No. 603 (10 June 1975), as amended by P.D. No.
1175 (15 August 1977).
14 Executive Order 209 (03 August 1988).
142
_______________
15 16 CJS citing City of Los Angeles vs. Oliver, 283 P: 298, 102 Cal. App.
299.
16 Ayog vs. Cusi, Jr., G.R. No. L-46729, 19 November 1982 (118 SCRA
492).
17 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, p. 651.
18 Benquet Consolidated Mining Co. vs. Pineda, No. L-7231, 28 March
1956 (98 Phil. 711) quoting Pearsall vs. Great Northern R. Co., 161 U.S.
646.
19 Reyes vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 125129, 29 March 1999 (305
SCRA 512) as cited in Bernabe vs. Alejo, G.R. No. 140500, 21 January
2002 (374 SCRA 180).
20 G.R. No. 92326, 24 January 1992 (205 SCRA 356).
143
_______________
144
_______________
tent at the time of the adoption, within the five (5) years following the
recovery from such incompetency.
The adopter must also file the petition to set aside the adoption within
five (5) years from the time the cause or causes giving rise to the rescission
or revocation of the same took place. (emphasis supplied)
24Id.,at p. 24, citing Brearly School vs. Ward, 210 NY 358, 40 LRA NS.
1215; also, Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 7th Ed. p. 546.
25 Martin vs. Putman (Miss) 427 So 2d 1373; There is no right of
adoption. It is the extension of a privilege. Eggleston vs. Landrum, 210
Miss 645, 50 So 2d 364, 23 ALR2d 696.
26 Browder vs. Harmeyer (Ind App) as cited in Am Jur, 2d, Vol. 2.
27 Adoption has also been characterized as a status created by the state
acting as parens patriae, the sovereign parent. Douglas vs. Harrelson (Ala
App) 454 So 2d 984.
28 16 CJS citing Robinsons vs. Mchugh, 291 P. 330, 158 Wash. 157.
145
——o0o——