Special Proceedings: Adoption Concept

Special Proceedings
Atty. Raia Angelie A. Tumanda 2nd Semester SY 2019-2020

Jose Maria College of Law
ADOPTION
Concept:
 Adoption is the process of making a child, whether related or not to the adopter,
possesses 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 filiation1.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE NATHY ASTORGA GARCIA

G.R. No. 148311. March 31, 2005
FACTS: On August 31, 2000, Honorato B. Catindig, herein petitioner, filed a petition to adopt his minor
illegitimate child Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia. He alleged therein that Stephanie has been using her
mother’s middle name and surname; and that he is now a widower and qualified to be her adopting
parent. He prayed that Stephanie’s middle name Astorga be changed to "Garcia," her mother’s surname,
and that her surname "Garcia" be changed to "Catindig," his surname.
In his motion for reconsideration, he prayed that Stephanie should be allowed to use the surname of her
natural mother (GARCIA) as her middle name.
However, the trial court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration holding that there is no law or
jurisprudence allowing an adopted child to use the surname of his biological mother as his middle name.
ISSUE: Whether or not an illegitimate child may use the surname of her mother as her middle name
when she is subsequently adopted by her natural father.
RULING: Yes. The law is silent as to what middle name an adoptee may use. Article 365 of the Civil
Code merely provides that an adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter.
Adoption is defined as 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.
One of the effects of adoption is that the adopted is deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopter for all
intents and purposes pursuant to Article 189 of the Family Code and Section 17, Article V of RA 8552.
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
the surname of her father and her mother, as discussed above. This is consistent with the intention of
the members of the Civil Code and Family Law Committees as earlier discussed. In fact, it is a Filipino
custom that the initial or surname of the mother should immediately precede the surname of the father.
Additionally, as aptly stated by both parties, Stephanie’s continued use of her mother’s surname (Garcia)
as her middle name will maintain her maternal lineage. It is to be noted that Article 189(3) of the Family
1
In the matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 148311. March 31, 2005
CAYETANO.ROBLE.ROXAS 1
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
Code and Section 18, Article V of RA 8552 (law on adoption) provide that the adoptee remains an
intestate heir of his/her biological parent. Hence, Stephanie can well assert or claim her hereditary rights
from her natural mother in the future.
Nota Bene:
 Since adoption is essentially a juridical act, a ward (ampon), without the benefit of formal
(judicial adoption), is neither a compulsory nor a legal heir.2
BENIGNO MANUEL, ET.AL. vs HON. NICODEMO T. FERRER

G.R. No. 117246 August 21, 1995
FACTS: Petitioners, the legitimate children of spouses Antonio Manuel and Beatriz Guiling, initiated this suit.
During his marriage with Beatriz, Antonio had an extra-marital affair with one Ursula Bautista. From this
relationship, Juan Manuel was born.
Juan Manuel, the illegitimate son of Antonio, married Esperanza Gamba. In consideration of the marriage, a
donation propter nuptias over a parcel of land, with an area of 2,700 square meters was executed in favor of Juan
Manuel by Laurenciana Manuel. Two other parcels of land were later bought by Juan and registered in his name. The
couple were not blessed with a child of their own. Their desire to have one impelled the spouses to take private
respondent Modesta Manuel-Baltazar into their fold and so raised her as their own "daughter".
On 03 June 1980, Juan Manuel executed in favor of Estanislaoa Manuel a Deed of Sale Con Pacto de Retro (with a 10-
year period of redemption) over a one-half (1/2) portion of his land covered by TCT No. 41134. Juan Manuel died
intestate on 21 February 1990. Two years later, or on 04 February 1992, Esperanza Gamba also passed away.
On 05 March 1992, a month after the death of Esperanza, Modesta executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
claiming for herself the three parcels of land (all still in the name of Juan Manuel). Following the registration of the
document of adjudication with the Office of the Register of Deeds, the three titles in the name of Juan Manuel were
cancelled and new titles were issued in the name of Modesta Manuel-Baltazar. On 19 October 1992, Modesta
executed in favor of her co-respondent Estanislaoa Manuel a Deed of Renunciation and Quitclaim over the
unredeemed one-half (1/2) portion of the land that was sold to the latter by Juan Manuel under the 1980 Deed of
Sale Con Pacto de Retro. These acts of Modesta apparently did not sit well with petitioners.
Petitioners argue that they are the legal heirs over one-half of Juan’s intestate estate under the provision of the Civil
Code. Hence, this case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are compulsory heirs of their deceased illegitimate brother who was not
judicially adopted.
RULING: No.
Article 992 of the New Civil Code enunciates what is so commonly referred to in the rules on succession as the
"principle of absolute separation between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family." The doctrine rejects
succession ab intestato in the collateral line between legitimate relatives, on the one hand, and illegitimate
relatives, on other hand, although it does not totally disavow such succession in the direct line.
Article 992 of the New Civil Code prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the
legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. They may have a natural tie of blood,
but this is not recognized by law for the purposes of Article 992.
The rule in Article 992 has consistently been applied by the Court in several other cases. Thus, it has ruled that where
the illegitimate child had
2
Manuel vs Ferrer, G.R. No. 117246 August 21, 1995 and Delgado Vda. De Dela Rosa vs Heirs of Marciana Rustia
Vda. De Damian, G.R. No. 155733, January 27, 2006
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
half-brothers who were legitimate, the latter had no right to the former's inheritance.
In her answer to the complaint, Modesta candidly admitted that she herself is not an intestate heir of Juan Manuel.
She is right. A ward (ampon), without the benefit of formal (judicial) adoption, is neither a compulsory nor a legal
heir.
Nevertheless, the complaint of petitioners seeking the nullity of the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by
Modesta, the three (3) TCT's issued to her favor, as well as the Deed of Renunciation and Quitclaim in favor of
Estanislaoa Manuel, was properly dismissed by the trial court. Petitioners, not being the real "parties-in-interest" in
the case, had neither the standing nor the cause of action to initiate the complaint.
DELGADO VDA. DE DE LA ROSA, ET.AL vs HEIRS OF MARCIANA RUSTIA VDA. DE DAMIAN

G.R. No. 155733 January 27, 2006
FACTS: The deceased Josefa Delgado died on September 8, 1972 without a will. She was survived by
Guillermo Rustia and some collateral relatives, the petitioners herein. Several months later, on June 15,
1973, Guillermo Rustia executed an affidavit of self-adjudication of the remaining properties comprising
her estate.
It was alleged that sometime in 1917, Guillermo Rustia proposed marriage to Josefa Delgado but whether
a marriage in fact took place is disputed. According to petitioners, the two eventually lived together as
husband and wife but were never married. To prove their assertion, petitioners point out that no record
of the contested marriage existed in the civil registry. Moreover, a baptismal certificate naming Josefa
Delgado as one of the sponsors referred to her as "Señorita" or unmarried woman.
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado never had any children. With no children of their own, they took
into their home the youngsters Guillermina Rustia Rustia and Nanie Rustia. These children, never legally
adopted by the couple, were what was known in the local dialect as ampun-ampunan.
During his life with Josefa, however, Guillermo Rustia did manage to father an illegitimate child, the
intervenor-respondent Guillerma Rustia, with one Amparo Sagarbarria.
According to Guillerma, Guillermo Rustia treated her as his daughter, his own flesh and blood, and she
enjoyed open and continuous possession of that status from her birth in 1920 until her father’s demise. In
fact, Josefa Delgado’s obituary which was prepared by Guillermo Rustia, named the intervenor-
respondent as one of their children. Also, her report card from the University of Santo Tomas identified
Guillermo Rustia as her parent/guardian.
Oppositors (respondents here) nonetheless posit that Guillerma Rustia has no interest in the intestate
estate of Guillermo Rustia as she was never duly acknowledged as an illegitimate child. They contend
that her right to compulsory acknowledgement prescribed when Guillermo died in 1974 and that she
cannot claim voluntary acknowledgement since the documents she presented were not the authentic
writings prescribed by the new Civil Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not Guillerma Rustia who was not adopted, is an heir of the deceased Guillermo
Rustia.
RULING: No.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
Intervenor (now co-respondent) Guillerma Rustia is an illegitimate child of Guillermo Rustia. As such,
she may be entitled to successional rights only upon proof of an admission or recognition of paternity.
She, however, claimed the status of an acknowledged illegitimate child of Guillermo Rustia only after the
death of the latter on February 28, 1974 at which time it was already the new Civil Code that was in effect.
Intervenor Guillerma sought recognition on two grounds: first, compulsory recognition through the open
and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child and second, voluntary recognition
through authentic writing.
Intervenor Guillerma’s right to claim compulsory acknowledgment prescribed upon the death of
Guillermo Rustia on February 28, 1974. The claim of voluntary recognition (Guillerma’s second ground)
must likewise fail. An authentic writing, for purposes of voluntary recognition, is understood as a
genuine or indubitable writing of the parent (in this case, Guillermo Rustia). This includes a public
instrument or a private writing admitted by the father to be his. Did intervenor’s report card from the
University of Santo Tomas and Josefa Delgado’s obituary prepared by Guillermo Rustia qualify as
authentic writings under the new Civil Code? Unfortunately not. The report card of intervenor Guillerma
did not bear the signature of Guillermo Rustia. The fact that his name appears there as intervenor’s
parent/guardian holds no weight since he had no participation in its preparation.
Adoption is a juridical act, a proceeding in rem, which [created] between two persons a relationship
similar to that which results from legitimate paternity and filiation. Only an adoption made through the
court, or in pursuance with the procedure laid down under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court is valid in this
jurisdiction. It is not of natural law at all, but is wholly and entirely artificial. To establish the relation, the
statutory requirements must be strictly carried out, otherwise, the adoption is an absolute nullity. The fact
of adoption is never presumed, but must be affirmatively [proven] by the person claiming its existence.
Two of the claimants to the estate of Guillermo Rustia, namely, intervenor Guillerma Rustia and
the ampun-ampunan Guillermina Rustia Rustia, are not lawful heirs of the decedent. Under Article 1002 of
the new Civil Code, if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or surviving spouse,
the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. Therefore, the lawful heirs of
Guillermo Rustia are the remaining claimants, consisting of his sisters, nieces and nephews.
 Simulation of birth, which is the tampering of the civil registry to make it appear in the
birth records that a certain child was born to a person who is not his/her biological
mother, does not likewise produce the legal effects of adoption.
Rectification of Simulated Births. – A person who has, prior to the effectivity of this Act,
simulated the birth of a child shall not be punished for such act: Provided,
a. That the simulation of birth was made for the best interest of the child and
b. that he/she has been consistently considered and treated by that person as his/her own
son/daughter.
Provided, further, That the application for correction of the birth registration and petition for
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
adoption shall be filed within five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act and completed
thereafter.
 Adoption is an in rem proceeding3 and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the
case if the notice by publication does not carry the true name of the child to be adopted 4.
IN RE: ADOPTION OF CHILD BAPTIZED UNDER THE NAME OF ROSE,

MARVIN G. ELLIS and GLORIA C. ELLIS vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-16922 April 30, 1963
FACTS: Petitioner Marvin G. Ellis, a native of San Francisco, California, is 28 years of age. On
September 3, 1949, he married Gloria G. Ellis in Banger, Maine, United States. Both are citizens of the
United States. Baby Rose was born on September 26, 1959, at the Caloocan Maternity Hospital. Four or
five days later, the mother of Rose left her with the Heart of Mary Villa — an institution for unwed
mothers and their babies — stating that she (the mother) could not take of Rose without bringing disgrace
upon her (the mother's family.).
Being without issue, on November 22, 1959, Mr. and Mrs. Ellis filed a petition with the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga for the adoption of the aforementioned baby. At the time of the hearing of the
petition on January 14,1960, petitioner Marvin G. Ellis and his wife had been in the Philippines for three
(3) years, he being assigned thereto as staff sergeant in the United States Air Force Base, in Angeles,
Pampanga where both lived at that time. They had been in the Philippines before, or, to be exact, in 1953.
ISSUE: Not being permanent residents in the Philippines, whether or not petitioners are qualified to
adopt.
RULING: No.
Article 335 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, provides that:
"The following cannot adopt:
xxx xxx xxx
(4) Non-resident aliens;".
xxx xxx xxx
This legal provisions is too clear to require interpretation. No matter how much the court sympathize
with the plight of Baby Rose and with the good intentions of petitioners herein, the law leaves no choice
but to apply its explicit terms, which unqualified deny to petitioners the power to adopt anybody in the
Philippines.
In this connection, it should be noted that this is a proceedings in rem, which no court may entertain
unless it has jurisdiction, not only over the subject matter of the case and over the parties, but also over the
res, which is the personal status of Baby Rose as well as that of petitioners herein. The Civil Code (Art. 15)
3
Ellis vs Republic, G.R. No. L-16922, April 30, 1963
4
Celerino Yu Seco vs Republic, G.R. No. L-13441, June 30, 1960
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
adheres to the theory that jurisdiction over the status of a natural person is determined by the latters'
nationality. Pursuant to this theory, there is jurisdiction over the status of Baby Rose, she being a citizen
of the Philippines, but not over the status of the petitioners, who are foreigners.
CELERINO YU SECO vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. L-13441 June 30, 1960
FACTS: Petitioner was born on June 10, 1932, in the municipality of Baliwag, province of Bulacan, of
Chinese parents Jose Yu Bundoc and Siu Sio. He is still single, and engaged in the grocery store business
in the town of Baliwag with a capital of about P5,000. He is of good moral character and believes in the
principles underlying the Philippine Constitution. He has conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines, both in his relations
with the government and with the community in which he lives. He speaks and writes English and
Tagalog.
However, the lower court dismissed petitioner's petition for the reason that he did not file a declaration of
intention, as required by Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law. It reasoned that petitioner had not
proved that he was exempt from such requirement, in that although he had established that he was born
in the Philippines, his exhibits, Exhibits "H" and "I" presented to show that he received his elementary
education in the Baliwag Elementary School and secondary education in the Baliwag Institute, refer to"
Celerino Yu" and not Celerino Seco y Sio, the name he stated in his petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over the petition for Naturalization.
RULING: No.
While petitioner repeatedly asserted at the trial in the court below that his real name is Celerino S. Yu and
that he has adopted the name Celerino Yu Seco for no other reason than that he was required by the
Bureau of Immigration to use that name in his application for registration as alien, his petition was,
however, filed in the name of Celerino Yu Seco and accordingly, the publication of the notice of the filing
of said petition shows the name of Celerino Yu Seco as the applicant and not Celerino S. Yu.
This publication does not afford sufficient notice of the filing of the petition and is misleading to the
public. The purpose of the requirement of publication is "to apprise the public of the pendency of the
petition so that those who may know of any legal objection to it might come forward with the
information in order to determine the fitness of petitioner for Philippine citizenship". If petitioner's true
name is Celerino S. Yu, while the notices published give his name as Celerino Yu Seco, persons who
might have derogatory information against Celerino S. Yu Seco, the applicant, is some one else. The
purpose of the publication would thus be defeated, and the road would be laid open to fraudulent
subterfuges through the use of aliases.
Assuming that petitioner is known by both names, Celerino S. Yu and Celerino Yu Seco, he should have
made full disclosure by applying for naturalization under both names.
Governing Laws on Adoption
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
 Republic Act No. 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998
 Republic Act No. 8043 or the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995
 Republic Act No. 9523 - AN ACT REQUIRING CERTIFICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT (DSWD) TO DECLARE A "CHILD LEGALLY AVAILABLE FOR
ADOPTION" AS A PREREQUISITE FOR ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS, AMENDING FOR THIS
PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8552, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
DOMESTIC ADOPTION ACT OF 1998, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8043, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION ACT OF 1995, PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 603, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
DOMESTIC ADOPTION
Definitions (RA 8552):
 “FOUNDLING” - refers to a deserted or abandoned infant or child whose parents,

guardian or relatives are unknown; or a child committed to an orphanage or charitable
or similar institution with unknown facts of birth and parentage and registered in the
Civil Register as a “foundling.”
 “DEPENDENT CHILD” refers to one who is without a parent, guardian or custodian or

one whose parents, guardian or other custodian for good cause desires to be relieved of
his care and custody and is dependent upon the public for support.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9523 provides for the following definitions amending RA 8552 and RA
8043:
 “CHILD” refers to a person:

a. below eighteen (18) years of age; or
b. a person over eighteen (18) years of age but is unable to fully take care of him/herself
or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination
because of physical or mental disability or condition.
 “ABANDONED CHILD” refers to a child who has no proper parental care or
guardianship, or whose parent(s) have deserted him/her for a period of at least three (3)
continuous months5, which includes a founding.
 “NEGLECTED CHILD” refers to a child whose basic needs have been deliberately
unattended or inadequately attended within a period of three (3) continuous months.
Neglect may occur in two (2) ways:
5
Under RA 8552 the period is for atleast six (6) continuous months and has been judicially declared as such.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
(a) There is physical neglect when the child is malnourished, ill-clad, and
without proper shelter. A child is unattended when left by
himself/herself without proper provisions and/or without proper
supervision.
(b) There is emotional neglect when the child is maltreated, raped,

seduced, exploited, overworked, or made to work under conditions
not conducive to good health; or is made to beg in the streets or public
places; or when children are in moral danger, or exposed to gambling,
prostitution, and other vices.
 “VOLUNTARILY COMMITTED CHILD” is one whose parent(s) or legal guardian

knowingly and willingly relinquished parental authority to the DSWD or any duly
accredited child-placement or child-caring agency or institution.
 “CHILD LEGALLY AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION” refers to a child in whose favor a

certification was issued by the DSWD that he/she is legally available for adoption after
the fact of abandonment or neglect has been proven through the submission of pertinent
documents, or one who was voluntarily committed by his/her parent(s) or legal
guardian.
Applicability:
 Domestic Adoption Act applies to adoption of Filipino children, where the entire
adoption process beginning from the filing of the petition up to the issuance of the
adoption decree takes place in the Philippines.
Who may Adopt?
Section 4. Who may adopt. – The following may adopt:
(1) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights, of good moral
character, has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; who is emotionally and
psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee, and
who is in a position to support and care for his children in keeping with the means of the family. The
requirement of a 16-year difference between the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived when
the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee or is the spouse of the adoptee’s parent;
(2) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above-stated for Filipino nationals: Provided, That his
country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines, that he has been living in the
Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the petition for adoption and
maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered, that he has been certified by his
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate government agency to have the legal capacity to
adopt in his country, and that his government allows the adoptee to enter his country as his adopted
child. Provided, further, That the requirements on residency and certification of the alien’s
qualification to adopt in his country may be waived for the following:
(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4th) degree
of consanguinity or affinity; or
(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino spouse; or
(iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his spouse a
relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino
spouse.
(3) The guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the guardianship and clearance of his
financial accountabilities.
Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:
(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of one spouse by the other spouse;
or
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child: Provided, however, That the
other spouse has signified his consent thereto; or
(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.
In case husband and wife jointly adopt or one spouse adopts the illegitimate child of the other, joint
parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses.
(1) FILIPINO CITIZEN provided he/she:

a. Of legal age;
b. With full civil capacity and legal rights;
c. Of good moral character;
d. Has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;
e. Emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children;
f. At least 16 years older than the adoptee unless the biological parent of adoptee or the
spouse of said parent; and
g. In a position to support and care for his children in keeping with the means of the
family.
(2) ALIEN who has:
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
a. the same qualifications as Filipino citizens;

b. He is a national of a country with diplomatic relations with the Philippines;
c. Has been certified by his diplomatic or consular office of any appropriate
government agency to have legal capacity to adopt in his country.
d. He has 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
EXCEPTIONS: the residency requirement for foreigners under the Domestic

Adoption Act may be waived in the following instances:
 Adopter is a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the
4th degree of consanguinity or affinity;
 Adopter seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of his/her Filipino
spouse; or
 Adopter is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with
his/her spouse a relative of the latter within the 4 th degree of consanguinity or
affinity.
Question: May an alien married to a former Filipino citizen (naturalized American) adopt the
latter’s younger brother and sister?
NO, he is not a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity
nor does he seek to adopt his wife’s legitimate child. Although he seeks to adopt with
his wife her relatives by consanguinity, he is not married to a Filipino citizen, her wife is
already a naturalized American citizen at the time the petition was filed.
How about a Former Filipino Citizen? May she adopt her younger siblings?
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs HON. CONCEPCION S. ALARCON VERGARA, ET. AL.

G.R. No. 95551 March 20, 1997
FACTS: On June 25, 1990, the spouses Samuel R. Dye, Jr. and Rosalina Due Dye filed a petition before
the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City to adopt Maricel R. Due and Alvin R. Due, ages 13 and 12 years
old, respectively, younger siblings of Rosalina. Samuel R. Dye, Jr. a member of the United States Air
Force, is an American citizen who resided at the Clark Air Base in Pampanga. His wife Rosalina is a
former Filipino who became a naturalized American. They have two children. Both Maricel and Alvin
Due, as well as their natural parents, gave their consent to the adoption.
The Republic filed this petition for review on a pure question of law, contending that the spouses Dye are
not qualified under the law to adopt Maricel and Alvin Due.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
ISSUE: Whether or not a former Filipino citizen may adopt her younger sibling.
RULING: No.
As a general rule, aliens cannot adopt Filipino citizens as this is proscribed under Article 184 of the
Family Code which states:
Art. 184. The following persons may not adopt:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) An alien, except:
(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.
Samuel Robert Dye, Jr. who is an American and, therefore, an alien is disqualified from adopting the
minors Maricel and Alvin Due because he does not fall under any of the three aforequoted exceptions
laid down by the law. He is not a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity.
Nor does he seek to adopt his wife's legitimate child.
On her own, Rosalina Dye cannot adopt her brother and sister for the law mandates joint adoption by
husband and wife, subject to exceptions. Article 29 of Presidential Decree No. 603 (Child and Youth
Welfare Code) retained the Civil Code provision that husband and wife may jointly adopt. The Family
Code amended this rule by scrapping the optional character of joint adoption and making it now
mandatory. Article 185 of the Family Code provides:
Art. 185. Husband and wife must adopt, except in the following cases:
(1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child;
(2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other.
None of the above exceptions applies to Samuel and Rosalina Dye, for they did not petition to adopt the
latter's child but her brother and sister.
The Court has previously recognized the ineligibility of a similarly situated alien husband with a former
Filipino wife seeking to adopt the latter's nephews and niece in the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals.
Although the wife in said case was qualified to adopt under Article 184, paragraph 3 (a), she being a
former Filipino who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity, she could not jointly adopt with her
husband under Article 185 because he was an alien ineligible to adopt here in the Philippines.
(3) The guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the guardianship and
clearance of his financial accountabilities.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
MARRIED PERSON MUST JOINTLY ADOPT WITH HIS/HER SPOUSE
General Rule: Joint adoption by the husband and wife is MANDATORY. This is in consonance
with the concept of joint parental authority over the child which is the ideal situation. As
the child adopted is elevated to the level of a legitimate child, it is but natural to require
the spouses to adopt jointly.
Exceptions:
2) One spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other spouse;
3) One spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child, provided the other spouse
consents thereto;
4) Spouses are legally separated from each other.
IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHAEL and MONINA LIM

G.R. Nos. 168992-93 May 21, 2009
FACTS: Petitioner is an optometrist by profession. On 23 June 1974, she married Primo Lim (Lim).
They were childless. Minor children, whose parents were unknown, were entrusted to them by a certain
Lucia Ayuban (Ayuban). Being so eager to have a child of their own, petitioner and Lim registered the
children to make it appear that they were the children’s parents. The children were named Michelle P.
Lim (Michelle) and Michael Jude P. Lim (Michael). Michelle was barely eleven days old when brought to
the clinic of petitioner. She was born on 15 March 1977. Michael was 11 days old when Ayuban brought
him to petitioner’s clinic. His date of birth is 1 August 1983.
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, Lim died. On 27 December 2000, petitioner married Angel Olario
(Olario), an American citizen.
Thereafter, petitioner decided to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty given under Republic Act
No. 8552 (RA 8552) to those individuals who simulated the birth of a child. Thus, on 24 April 2002,
petitioner filed separate petitions for the adoption of Michelle and Michael before the trial court docketed
as SPL PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and 1259, respectively. At the time of the filing of the petitions for
adoption, Michelle was 25 years old and already married, while Michael was 18 years and seven months
old.
However, the trial court dismissed the petitions and 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 RA 8552 and Article 185 of the
Family Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner, who has remarried, can singly adopt.
RULING: No.
At the time the petitions for adoption were filed, petitioner had already remarried. She filed the petitions
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
by herself, without being joined by her husband Olario. We have no other recourse but to affirm the trial
court’s decision denying the petitions for adoption. Dura lex sed lex. The law is explicit. Section 7, Article
III of RA 8552 reads:
SEC. 7. Who May Adopt. - The following may adopt:
(a) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights, of good moral
character, has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, emotionally and
psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee, and who
is in a position to support and care for his/her children in keeping with the means of the family. The
requirement of sixteen (16) year difference between the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived
when the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee, or is the spouse of the adoptee’s parent;
(b) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above stated for Filipino nationals: Provided, That
his/her country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines, that he/she has 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, that he/she has been certified by
his/her diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate government agency that he/she has the legal
capacity to adopt in his/her country, and that his/her government allows the adoptee to enter his/her
country as his/her adopted son/daughter: Provided, further, That the requirements on residency and
certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt in his/her country may be waived for the following:
(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity
or affinity; or
(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of his/her Filipino spouse; or
(iii) 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 spouses; or
(c) The guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the guardianship and clearance of
his/her financial accountabilities.
Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:
(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, however, That the other
spouse has signified his/her consent thereto; or
In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one spouse adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of the other,
joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses. (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner, having remarried at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, must jointly adopt. Since
the petitions for adoption were filed only by petitioner herself, without joining her husband, Olario, the
trial court was correct in denying the petitions for adoption on this ground.
Neither does petitioner fall under any of the three exceptions enumerated in Section 7. First, the children
to be adopted are not the legitimate children of petitioner or of her husband Olario. Second, the children
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
are not the illegitimate children of petitioner. And third, petitioner and Olario are not legally separated
from each other.
The fact that Olario gave his consent to the adoption as shown in his Affidavit of Consent does not
suffice. There are certain requirements that Olario must comply being an American citizen. He must meet
the qualifications set forth in Section 7 of RA 8552 such as: (1) he must prove that his country has
diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines; (2) he must have been living in the Philippines
for at least three continuous years prior to the filing of the application for adoption; (3) he must maintain
such residency until the adoption decree is entered; (4) he has legal capacity to adopt in his own country;
and (5) the adoptee is allowed to enter the adopter’s country as the latter’s adopted child. None of these
qualifications were shown and proved during the trial.
These requirements on residency and certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt cannot likewise be
waived pursuant to Section 7. The children or adoptees are not relatives within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity of petitioner or of Olario. Neither are the adoptees the legitimate children of
petitioner.
CASTRO vs GREGORIO
G.R. No. 188801 October 15, 2014
Facts:
Rosario alleged that she and Jose were married. Their marriage had allegedly been troubled. They had a
child, Rose Marie, who succumbed to congenital heart disease and only lived for nine days. Rosario
allegedly left Jose after a couple of months because of the incompatibilities between them.
Rosario and Jose, however, briefly reconciled in 1969. Rosario gave birth to Joanne a year later. She and
Jose allegedly lived as husband and wife for about a year even if she lived in Manila and Jose stayed in
Laoag City. Jose would visit her in Manila during weekends. Afterwards, they separated permanently
because Rosario alleged that Jose had homosexual tendencies. She insisted, however, that they "remained
friends for fifteen (15) years despite their separation."
On August 1, 2000, Jose filed a petition for adoption before the Regional Trial Court of Batac, Ilocos
Norte. In the petition, he alleged that Jed and Regina were his illegitimate children with Lilibeth
Fernandez Gregorio (Lilibeth), whom Rosario alleged was his erstwhile housekeeper.
On October 16, 2000, the trial court approved the adoption, having ruled that "[n]o opposition had been
received by this Court from any person including the government which was represented by the Office of
the Solicitor General." A certificate of finality was issued on February 9, 2006.
On October 18, 2007, Rosario and Joanne filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of
Appeals, seeking to annul the October 16, 2000 decision of the trial court approving Jed and Regina’s
adoption. On May 26, 2009, the Court of Appeals denied the petition. When Rosario and Joanne’s motion
for reconsideration was denied on July 10, 2009, they filed this petition.
Petitioners argue that the appellate court misunderstood and misapplied the law on jurisdiction despite
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
the denial of due process, notice, and non-inclusion of indispensable parties. They argue that the
adoption of illegitimate children requires the consent, not only of the spouse, but also the legitimate
children 10 years or over of the adopter, and such consent was never secured from Joanne.
ISSUE:
W/N the petition for annulment of judgment seeking to annul the adoption shall be granted. Yes.
RULING:
It is settled that "the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action." As Jose filed the petition for adoption on August 1, 2000, it is Republic Act
No. 8552 which applies over the proceedings. The law on adoption requires that the adoption by the
father of a child born out of wedlock obtain not only the consent of his wife but also the consent of his
legitimate children.
Under Article III, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8552, the husband must first obtain the consent of his wife
if he seeks to adopt his own children born out of wedlock:
ARTICLE III
ELIGIBILITY
SEC. 7. Who May Adopt. — The following may adopt:
. . . . Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:
(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, however, That
the other spouse has signified his/her consent thereto; or
(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other. . . (Emphasis supplied)
The provision is mandatory. As a general rule, the husband and wife must file a joint petition for
adoption. The rationale for this is stated in In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim:
The use of the word "shall" in the above-quoted provision means that joint adoption by the husband and
the wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with the concept of joint parental authority over the child
which is the ideal situation. As the child to be adopted is elevated to the level of a legitimate child, it is
but natural to require the spouses to adopt jointly. The rule also insures harmony between the spouses.
In the absence of any decree of legal separation or annulment, Jose and Rosario remained legally married
despite their de facto separation. For Jose to be eligible to adopt Jed and Regina, Rosario must first signify
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
her consent to the adoption. Jose, however, did not validly obtain Rosario’s consent. His submission of a
fraudulent affidavit of consent in her name cannot be considered compliance of the requisites of the law.
Had Rosario been given notice by the trial court of the proceedings, she would have had a reasonable
opportunity to contest the validity of the affidavit. Since her consent was not obtained, Jose was ineligible
to adopt.
The law also requires the written consent of the adopter’s children if they are 10 years old or older. In
Article III, Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8552:
SEC. 9. Whose Consent is Necessary to the Adoption. — After being properly counseled and informed of
his/her right to give or withhold his/her approval of the adoption, the written consent of the following to
the adoption is hereby required: . . . .
(c) The legitimate and adopted sons/daughters, ten (10) years of age or over, of the adopter(s) and
adoptee, if any; (Emphasis supplied)
The consent of the adopter’s other children is necessary as it ensures harmony among the prospective
siblings. It also sufficiently puts the other children on notice that they will have to share their parent’s
love and care, as well as their future legitimes, with another person.
It is undisputed that Joanne was Jose and Rosario’s legitimate child and that she was over 10 years old at
the time of the adoption proceedings. Her written consent, therefore, was necessary for the adoption to be
valid. To circumvent this requirement, however, Jose manifested to the trial court that he and Rosario
were childless, thereby preventing Joanne from being notified of the proceedings. As her written consent
was never obtained, the adoption was not valid. For the adoption to be valid, petitioners’ consent was
required by Republic Act No. 8552.
Who may be Adopted?

Section 8. Who May Be Adopted. – The following may be adopted:
(a) A child legally available for adoption, or a child in whose favor a certification was issued by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) that he/she is legally available for
adoption after the fact of abandonment or neglect has been proven through the submission of
pertinent documents, or one who was voluntarily committed by his/her parent(s) or legal
guardian.
The child may either be a person below 18 years of age or a person over 18 years of age but is
unable to fully take care of him/herself or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation, or discrimination because of physical or mental disability or condition (As amended
by RA 9523)
(b) The legitimate son/daughter of one spouse by the other spouse;
(c) An illegitimate son/daughter by a qualified adopter to improve his/her status to that of
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
legitimacy;
(d) A person of legal age if, prior to the adoption, said person has been consistently considered and
treated by the adopter(s) as his/her own child since minority;
(e) A child whose adoption has been previously rescinded; or
(f) A child whose biological or adoptive parent(s) has died: Provided, That no proceedings shall be
initiated within six (6) months from the time of death of said parent(s).
Requirement of Certification Declaring Child Legally Available for Adoption:

1) The “Certification Declaring Child Legally Available for Adoption” applies only to
surrendered, abandoned, neglected, dependent children as provided for under RA No.
9523. Any of the following adoption proceedings in court does not require such
certification:
a. Adoption of an illegitimate child by any of his/her biological parent;

b. Adoption of a child by his/her step-parent;
c. Adoption of a child by a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or
affinity.
2) Under RA No. 9523, the certification that a child is legally available for adoption shall be
issued by the DSWD in lieu of a judicial order, thus making the entire process
administrative in nature. Under RA No. 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act, the
declaration that a child is legally available for adoption can be had either judicially or
administratively. This has been expressly repealed by RA 9523.
3) The certification issued by the DSWD, shall be, for all intents and purposes, the primary
evidence that the child is legally available in a domestic adoption proceeding and in
Inter-country adoption proceeding.
Section 6. Venue. – The petition for adoption shall be filed with the Family Court of the province or city
where the prospective adoptive parents reside.
Section 7. Contents of the Petition. – The petition shall be verified and specifically state at the heading of
the initiatory pleading whether the petition contains an application for change of name, rectification of
simulated birth, voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, or declaration of child as abandoned,
dependent or neglected.
1) If the adopter is a Filipino citizen, the petition shall allege the following:
a. The jurisdictional facts
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
b. Adopter’s qualifications
c. Adopter has undergone pre-adoption services under Section 4, RA 8552 (counselling
sessions, pre-adoption forum and seminars to resolve possible adoption issues, to prepare the
adopter for effective parenting, and help assess their motivation, capacity and readiness to
adopt.
2) If the adopter is an alien, the petition shall allege the following:
a. Jurisdictional facts
b. Adopter’s qualifications
c. Adopter has undergone pre-adoption services under Section 4, RA 8552 (counselling
sessions, pre-adoption forum and seminars to resolve possible adoption issues, to prepare the
adopter for effective parenting, and help assess their motivation, capacity and readiness to
adopt.
d. Country has diplomatic relations with Philippines.
e. Compliance with residency requirements.
f. Certified to have legal capacity to adopt in his country and adoptee is allowed to enter his
country as such.
The requirements of certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt in his country and of
residency may be waived if the alien:
(i) is a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth degree
of consanguinity or affinity; or
(ii) seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino spouse; or
(iii) is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his spouse a
relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino
spouse.
3) 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.
4) If the adopter is married, the spouse shall be a co-petitioner for joint adoption except if:
(i) one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other, or
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child and the other spouse signified
written consent thereto, or
5) 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.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
6) If the petition prays for a change of name, it shall also state the cause or reason for the change of
name.
In all petitions, it shall be alleged:
(a) 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.
(b) That the adoptee is not disqualified by law to be adopted.
(c) The probable value and character of the estate of the adoptee.
(d) The first name, surname or names by which the adoptee is to be known and registered in the
Civil Registry.
A certification of non-forum shopping shall be included pursuant to Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Section 9. Adoption of a foundling, an abandoned, dependent or neglected child. – In case the adoptee is a
foundling, an abandoned, dependent or neglected child, the petition shall allege:
(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.
Section 10. Change of name. – In case the petition also prays for change of name, the title or caption must
contain:
(a) The registered name of the child;
(b) Aliases or other names by which the child has been known; and
(c) The full name by which the child is to be known.
Section 11. Annexes to the Petition. – The following documents shall be attached to the petition:
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.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
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 under Section
4(2);
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.
Consent Required: Written consent of the following to the adoption is required, in the form of
an affidavit:
1. ADOPTEE – who is 10 years of age or over;
2. BIOLOGICAL PARENTS – it 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.
 The written consent of the biological parents is indispensable for the validity of a decree
of adoption. 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 parents6.
DIWATA RAMOS LANDINGIN vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 164948 June 27, 2006
Facts:
On February 4, 2002, Diwata Ramos Landingin, a citizen of the United States of America (USA), of
Filipino parentage and a resident of Guam, USA, filed a petitionfor the adoption of minors Elaine Dizon
Ramos who was born on August 31, 1986; Elma Dizon Ramos, who was born on September 7, 1987; and
Eugene Dizon Ramos who was born on August 5, 1989. The minors are the natural children of Manuel
Ramos, petitioner’s brother, and Amelia Ramos.
Landingin, as petitioner, alleged in her petition that when Manuel died on May 19, 1990, the children
were left to their paternal grandmother, Maria Taruc Ramos; their biological mother, Amelia, went to
Italy, re-married there and now has two children by her second marriage and no longer communicated
with her children by Manuel Ramos nor with her in-laws from the time she left up to the institution of the
adoption; the minors are being financially supported by the petitioner and her children, and relatives
6
Landingin vs Republic of the Philippines GR No. 164948 June 27, 2006.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
abroad; as Maria passed away on November 23, 2000, petitioner desires to adopt the children; the minors
have given their written consent to the adoption; she is qualified to adopt as shown by the fact that she is
a 57-year-old widow, has children of her own who are already married, gainfully employed and have
their respective families; she lives alone in her own home in Guam, USA, where she acquired citizenship,
and works as a restaurant server. She came back to the Philippines to spend time with the minors; her
children gave their written consent to the adoption of the minors. Petitioner’s brother, Mariano Ramos,
who earns substantial income, signified his willingness and commitment to support the minors while in
petitioner’s custody.
Elizabeth Pagbilao, Social Welfare Officer II of the DSWD, Field Office III, Tarlac, submitted a Child
Study Report, with the following recommendation of the adoption of the 3 minors.
The court, finding merit in the petition for adoption, rendered a decision granting said petition.
The OSG appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. On April 29, 2004, the CA rendered a decision
reversing the ruling of the RTC. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA denied in its
Resolution.
ISSUE:
W/N the petitioner is entitled to adopt the minors without the written consent of their biological mother,
Amelia Ramos. No.
RULING:
Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8552, otherwise known as the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, provides:
Sec. 9. Whose Consent is Necessary to the Adoption. - After being properly counseled and informed of
his/her right to give or withhold his/her approval of the adoption, the written consent of the following to
the adoption is hereby required:
(a) The adoptee, if ten (10) years of age or over;
(b) The biological parent(s) of the child, if known, or the legal guardian, or the proper
government instrumentality which has legal custody of the child;
(c) The legitimate and adopted sons/daughters, ten (10) years of age or over, of the adopter(s) and
adoptee, if any;
(d) The illegitimate sons/daughters, ten (10) years of age or over, of the adopter, if living with
said adopter and the latter’s souse, if any;
(e) The spouse, if any, of the person adopting or to be adopted.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
The general requirement of consent and notice to 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.
Clearly, 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. In this
case, petitioner failed to submit the written consent of Amelia Ramos to the adoption.
Petitioner, nonetheless, argues that the written consent of the biological mother is no longer necessary
because when Amelia’s husband died in 1990, she left for Italy and never came back. The children were
then left to the guidance and care of their paternal grandmother.
Petitioner’s contention must be rejected. When she filed her petition with the trial court, Rep. Act No.
8552 was already in effect. Section 9 thereof provides that if the written consent of the biological parents
cannot be obtained, the written consent of the legal guardian of the minors will suffice. If, as claimed by
petitioner, that the biological mother of the minors had indeed abandoned them, she should, thus have
adduced the written consent of their legal guardian.
Ordinarily, abandonment by a parent to justify the adoption of his child without his consent, is a conduct
which evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties. The term means neglect and refusal to
perform the filial and legal obligations of love and support. If a parent withholds presence, love, care, the
opportunity to display filial affection, and neglects to lend support and maintenance, the parent, in effect,
abandons the child.
Merely permitting the child to remain for a time undisturbed in the care of others is not such an
abandonment. To dispense with the requirement of consent, the abandonment must be shown to have
existed at the time of adoption.
Let it be emphasized, nevertheless, that the adoption of the minors herein will have the effect of severing
all legal ties between the biological mother, Amelia, and the adoptees, and that the same shall then be
vested on the adopter. It would thus be against the spirit of the law if financial consideration were to be
the paramount consideration in deciding whether to deprive a person of parental authority over his/her
children. More proof has to be adduced that Amelia has emotionally abandoned the children, and that
the latter will not miss her guidance and counsel if they are given to an adopting parent. Again, it is the
best interest of the child that takes precedence in adoption.
Exceptions:
1. Parents abandoned the child – means neglect and refusal to perform the filial and
legal obligations of love and support. If a parent withholds love, care and
opportunity to display filial affection, the parent in effect abandons the child.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
2. Parents are insane or hopelessly intemperate – the court may acquire jurisdiction
over the case even without the written consent of the parents or one of the parents
provided that the petition for adoption alleges facts sufficient to warrant exemption
from compliance therewith7.
HERBERT CANG vs CA
G.R. No. 105308 September 25, 1998
Facts:
Petitioner Herbert Cang and Anna Marie Clavano were married and begot three children, namely: Keith,
born on July 3, 1973; Charmaine, born on January 23, 1977, and Joseph Anthony, born on January 3, 1981.
Anna Marie filed a petition for legal separation before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of
Cebu, upon learning of her husband’s extramarital affairs Wilma Soco, a family friend of the Clavanos,
which the trial court approved. Petitioner sought a divorce from Anna Marie before the Second Judicial
District Court of the State of Nevada which issued the divorce decree that also granted sole custody of the
three minor children to Anna Marie, reserving rights of visitation at all reasonable times and places to
petitioner.
Ronald V. Clavano and Maria Clara Diago Clavano, the brother and sister-in-law of Anna Marie, filed
Special Proceedings for the adoption of the three minor Cang children before the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu. Anna Marie likewise filed an affidavit of consent alleging that her husband had evaded his legal
obligation to support his children and that because she would be going to the United States to attend to a
family business, leaving the children would be a problem.
Petitioner contest the adoption, alleging that, although were financially capable of supporting the
children while his finances were too meager compared to theirs, he could not in conscience, allow
anybody to strip him of his parental authority over his beloved children.
The petition was granted by the lower court which the Court of Appeals affirmed stating Article 188 of
the Family Code which requires the written consent of the natural parents of the child to be adopted. It
has been held however that the consent of the parent who has abandoned the child is not necessary
Herbert elevated the case to this Court.
ISSUE:
W/N petitioner has abandoned his children and the latter be legally adopted without his written consent.
No.
RULING:
Petitioner has not abandoned his children and the latter cannot be legally adopted without his written
consent.
Art. 31 of P.D. No. 603 provides —
7
Herbert Cang vs CA, G.R. No. 105308 September 25, 1998.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
Art. 31. Whose Consent is Necessary. — The written consent of the following to the
adoption shall be necessary:
(1) The person to be adopted, if fourteen years of age or, over;
(2) The natural parents of the child or his legal guardian of the Department
of Social Welfare or any duly licensed child placement agency under
whose care the child may be;
(3) The natural children, fourteen years and above, of the adopting
parents. (Emphasis supplied)
On December 17, 1986, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 91 amending
Articles 27, 28, 29, 31, 33 and 35 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code. As thus amended, Article 31 read:
Art. 31. Whose Consent is Necessary. — The written consent of the following to the
adoption shall be necessary:
(1) The person to be adopted, if fourteen years of age or over;
(2) The natural parents of the child or his legal guardian after receiving
counselling and appropriate social services from the Ministry of Social
Services and Development or from a duly licensed child-placement
agency;
(3) The Ministry of Social Services and Development or any duly

licensed child-placement agency under whose care and legal custody the
child may be;
(4) The natural children, fourteen years and above, of the adopting
parents. (Emphasis supplied)
Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time of
the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court. As such, when private
respondents filed the petition for adoption on September 25, 1987, the applicable law was the Child and
Youth Welfare Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 91.
As amended by the Family Code, the statutory provision on consent for adoption now reads:
Art. 188. The written consent of the following to the adoption shall be necessary:
(1) The person to be adopted, if ten years of age or over;
(2) The parents by nature of the child, the legal guardian, or the proper
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
government instrumentality;
(3) The legitimate and adopted children, ten years of age or over, of the
adopting parent or parents;
(4) The illegitimate children, ten years of age or over, of the adopting
parents, if living with said parent and the latter's spouse, if any; and
(5) The spouse, if any, of the person adopting or to be adopted.

(Emphasis supplied)
Based on the foregoing, it is thus evident that notwithstanding the amendments to the law, the written
consent of the natural parent to the adoption has remained a requisite for its validity. Notably, such
requirement is also embodied in Rule 99 of the Rules of Court as follows:
Sec. 3. Consent to adoption. — There shall be filed with the petition a written consent to the
adoption signed by the child, if fourteen years of age or over and not incompetent, and by
the child's spouse, if any, and by each of its known living parents who is not insane or
hopelessly intemperate or has not abandoned the child, or if the child is in the custody of an
orphan asylum, children's home, or benevolent society or person, by the proper officer or
officers of such asylum, home, or society, or by such persons; but if the child is
illegitimate and has not been recognized, the consent of its father to the adoption shall
not be required. (Emphasis supplied)
As clearly inferred from the foregoing provisions of law, the written consent of the natural parent is
indispensable for the validity of the decree of adoption. Nevertheless, the requirement of written consent
can be dispensed with if the parent has abandoned the child or that such parent is "insane or hopelessly
intemperate."
In the instant case, only the affidavit of consent of the natural mother was attached to the petition for
adoption. Petitioner's consent, as the natural father is lacking. Nonetheless, the petition sufficiently
alleged the fact of abandonment of the minors for adoption by the natural father.
However, in cases where the father opposes the adoption primarily because his consent thereto was not
sought, the matter of whether he had abandoned his child becomes a proper issue for determination. The
act of abandonment imports any conduct of the parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego all
parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child. It means neglect or refusal to perform the
natural and legal obligations of care and support which parents owe their children
In this case, however, petitioner did not manifest any conduct that would forego his parental duties and
relinquish all parental claims over his children as to, constitute abandonment. Physical abandonment
alone, without financial and moral desertion, is not tantamount to abandonment. While petitioner was
physically absent, he was not remiss in his natural and legal obligations of love, care and support for his
children. The Court find pieces of documentary evidence that petitioner maintained regular
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
communications with his wife and children through letters and telephone, and send them packages
catered to their whims.
3. ADOPTER’S CHILDREN – the consent of the adopter’s other children is necessary

as it ensures harmony among the prospective siblings. It also sufficiently puts the
other children on notice that they will have to share their parent’s love and care, as
well as their future legitimes, with another person.
4. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN LIVING WITH THE ADOPTER
5. SPOUSE of the adopter or adoptee.
Section 12. Order of Hearing. – If the petition and attachments are sufficient in form and substance, the
court shall issue an order which shall contain the following:
(1) the registered name of the adoptee in the birth certificate and the names by which the adoptee
has been known which shall be stated in the caption;
(2) the purpose of the petition;
(3) the complete name which the adoptee will use if the petition is granted;
(4) the date and place of hearing which shall be set within six (6) months from the date of the
issuance of the order and shall direct that a copy thereof be published before the date of hearing
at least once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province or city where the court is situated; Provided, that in case of application for change of
name, the date set for hearing shall not be within four (4) months after the last publication of the
notice nor within thirty (30) days prior to an election.
The newspaper shall be selected by raffle under the supervision of the Executive Judge.
(5) a directive to the social worker of the court, the social service office of the local government unit
or any child-placing or child-caring agency, or the Department to prepare and submit child and
home study reports before the hearing if such reports had not been attached to the petition due to
unavailability at the time of the filing of the latter; and
(6) a directive to the social worker of the court to conduct counseling sessions with the biological
parents on the matter of adoption of the adoptee and submit her report before the date of
hearing.
At the discretion of the court, copies of the order of hearing shall also be furnished the Office of the
Solicitor General through the provincial or city prosecutor, the Department and the biological parents of
the adoptee, if known.
If a change in the name of the adoptee is prayed for in the petition, notice to the Solicitor General shall be
mandatory.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
Section 13. Child and Home Study Reports. – In preparing the child study report on the adoptee, the
concerned social worker shall verify with the Civil Registry the real identity and registered name of the
adoptee. If the birth of the adoptee was not registered with the Civil Registry, it shall be the responsibility
of the social worker to register the adoptee and secure a certificate of foundling or late registration, as the
case may be.
The social worker shall establish that the child is legally available for adoption and the documents in
support thereof are valid and authentic, that the adopter has sincere intentions and that the adoption
shall inure to the best interests of the child.
In case the adopter is an alien, the home study report must show the legal capacity to adopt and that his
government allows the adoptee to enter his country as his adopted child in the absence of the certification
required under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8552.
If after the conduct of the case studies, the social worker finds that there are grounds to deny the petition,
he shall make the proper recommendation to the court, furnishing a copy thereof to the petitioner.
REPORTS OF THE SOCIAL WORKER THAT NEED TO BE SUBMITTED:

(1) Child Study Report – made by court social worker of the child’s legal status,
placement history, psychological, social, spiritual, medical, ethno-cultural
background family needed in determining the most appropriate placement for him.
The Social Worker shall:

a. Verify with the Civil Registry the real identity and registered name of the
adoptee.
b. If not registered, he/she shall register the adoptee and secure a certificate of
foundling of late registration.
c. Establish that the child is legally available for adoption, supporting documents
are valid and authentic, adopter has sincere intentions and that the adoption is
for the best interests of the child.
(2) Home Study Report – made by court social worker of the motivation and capacity of
the prospective adoptive parents to provide a home that meets the needs of a child.
Section 15. Supervised Trial Custody. – Before issuance of the decree of adoption, the court shall give the
adopter trial custody of the adoptee for a period of at least six (6) months within which the parties are
expected to adjust psychologically and emotionally to each other and establish a bonding relationship.
The trial custody shall be monitored by the social worker of the court, the Department, or the social
service of the local government unit, or the child-placement or child-caring agency which submitted and
prepared the case studies. During said period, temporary parental authority shall be vested in the
adopter.
The court may, motu proprio or upon motion of any party, reduce the period or exempt the parties if it
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
finds that the same shall be for the best interests of the adoptee, stating the reasons therefor.
An alien adopter however must complete the 6-month trial custody except 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 child of his Filipino spouse; or
c) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his or her spouse the
latter’s relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity.
If the child is below seven (7) years of age and is placed with the prospective adopter through a pre-
adoption placement authority issued by the Department, the court shall order that the prospective
adopter shall enjoy all the benefits to which the biological parent is entitled from the date the adoptee is
placed with him.
The social worker shall submit to the court a report on the result of the trial custody within two weeks
after its termination.
Supervised Trial Custody:
 Temporary parental authority is vested in prospective adopter.
 Period is at least six months. But may be reduced by the court, motu proprio or upon
motion.
 If adopter is alien, the law mandatorily requires completion of the six-month trial
custody and may not be reduced EXCEPT IF:
a. A former Filipino citizen seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of
consanguinity or affinity; or
b. one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino spouse; or
c. one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his or her
spouse the latter’s relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity.
a. Under the Foster Care Act of 2012 (RA No. 10165), in case of adoption of the foster child
by the designated foster parents, the trial custody period may be partially waived to the
extent of the period equivalent to the period in which the foster child has been under the
foster care of the foster parents; provided, that a harmonious relationship exists between
the foster child, the foster parents, and, where applicable, the foster family.
Section 16. Decree of Adoption. – If the supervised trial custody is satisfactory to the parties and the court is
convinced from the trial custody report and the evidence adduced that the adoption shall redound to the
best interests of the adoptee, a decree of adoption shall be issued which shall take effect as of the date the
original petition was filed even if the petitioners die before its issuance.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
The decree shall:

A. State the name by which the child is to be known and registered;
B. Order:
1) the Clerk of Court to issue to the adopter a certificate of finality upon expiration of the 15-day
reglementary period within which to appeal;
2) the adopter to submit a certified true copy of the decree of adoption and the certificate of finality
to the Civil Registrar where the child was originally registered within thirty (30) days from
receipt of the certificate of finality. In case of change of name, the decree shall be submitted to the
Civil Registrar where the court issuing the same is situated.
3) the Civil Registrar of the place where the adoptee was registered:
a. to annotate on the adoptee’s original certificate of birth the decree of adoption within thirty
(30) days from receipt of the certificate of finality;
b. to issue a certificate of birth which shall not bear any notation that it is a new or amended
certificate and which shall show, among others, the following: registry number, date of
registration, name of child, sex, date of birth, place of birth, name and citizenship of adoptive
mother and father, and the date and place of their marriage, when applicable;
c. to seal the original certificate of birth in the civil registry records which can be opened only
upon order of the court which issued the decree of adoption; and
d. to submit to the court issuing the decree of adoption proof of compliance with all the
foregoing within thirty days from receipt of the decree.
If the adoptee is a foundling, the court shall order the Civil Registrar where the foundling was registered,
to annotate the decree of adoption on the foundling certificate and a new birth certificate shall be ordered
prepared by the Civil Registrar in accordance with the decree.
REYES vs SOTERO
GR No. 167405 February 16, 2006
Facts:
FACTS:
Respondent Chichioco filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration and settlement of estate
of the late Elena Lising claiming that she was the niece and heir of Lising who died intestate. Respondent
claims that real and personal properties were allegedly in the possession of petitioner Ana Joyce S. Reyes,
a grandniece of the deceased.
Petitioner Reyes filed an Opposition to the petition, claiming that she was an adopted child of Lising and
the latter’s husband and asserting that the petition be dismissed since she was the only heir of Lising who
passed away without leaving any debts.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a Supplement to the Opposition attaching thereto the certification of her
adoption from the local civil registrar’s office that the adoption decree was registered therein and also a
copy of a Judicial Form and a certification issued by the clerk of court that the decree was on file in the
General Docket of the RTC-Tarlac.
Respondents filed a Comment to the opposition stating that reasonable doubts have been cast on
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
Petitioner’s claim that she was legally adopted due allegedly to certain “badges of fraud.”
The appellate court refused to dismiss the proceeding because it was incumbent upon the petitioner to
prove before the trial court that she was indeed adopted by the Delos Santos spouse since, “imputations
of irregularities permeating the adoption decree render its authenticity under a cloud of doubt.”
ISSUE:
W/N petitioner had to prove the validity of her adoption due to imputations of irregularities.
RULING:
No. Petitioner need not prove her legal adoption by any evidence other than those which she had already
presented before the trial court.
We agree with petitioner that she need not prove her legal adoption by any evidence other than those
which she had already presented before the trial court. To recall, petitioner submitted a certification from
the local civil registrar’s office that the adoption decree was registered therein and also a copy of Judicial
Form No. 43 and a certification issued by the clerk of court that the decree was on file in the General
Docket of the RTC-Tarlac City. Both certifications were issued under the seal of the issuing offices and
were signed by the proper officers. These are thus presumed to have been regularly issued as part of the
official duties that said public officers perform.
It should be borne in mind that an adoption decree is a public document required by law to be entered
into the public records, the official repository of which, as well as all other judicial pronouncements
affecting the status of individuals, is the local civil registrar’s office as well as the court which rendered
the judgment.
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. As such, the certifications issued by the local civil
registrar and the clerk of court regarding details of petitioner’s adoption which are entered in the records
kept under their official custody, are prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. These
certifications suffice as proof of the fact of petitioner’s adoption by the Delos Santos spouses until
contradicted or overcome by sufficient evidence. Mere "imputations of irregularities" will not cast a
"cloud of doubt" on the adoption decree since the certifications and its contents are presumed valid until
proof to the contrary is offered.
In this regard, it must be pointed out that such contrary proof can be presented only in a separate action
brought principally for the purpose of nullifying the adoption decree. The latter cannot be assailed
collaterally in a proceeding for the settlement of a decedent’s estate.
Is there such a thing as Judicial Confirmation of a De Facto Adoption?

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs GINES
224 SCRA 261
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
Facts:
Special Proceeding No. 1967. It is very strange proceeding. The case involves a petition for the "judicial
confirmation of the de facto adoption" of Cecilia Averion filed on 11 October 1990. The petitioner therein
alleges that she and her late husband, Fernando Averion — who died in 1987 — "adopted" Cecilia
Averion in 1967; only 1 year and 3 months old at the time, Cecilia was supposedly given up by her
natural parents, the whereabouts of whom remain unknown. Petitioner further avers that she and her
husband, during his lifetime, reared the child and gave her all their love, attention, care and
understanding. They also provided her with an education and considered her as their own child.
Hence, the petition was filed "for the purpose of judicially confirming the de facto adoption of Cecilia
Averion by herein petitioner and her late husband." The said petition was not accompanied by the
written consent of Cecilia Averion who, at the time of filing, was already of legal age. On the very day the
petition was filed, respondent Judge forthwith issued a Notice of Hearing which provided that the
petition would be heard on 31 October 1990; it was likewise ordered therein that "a copy of this notice be
published once a week for three consecutive weeks at the expense of the petitioner in a newspaper of
general circulation in La Union and in the Philippines."
Since no opposition was registered by any other party, the petitioner's testimony was received by the
court. On 6 November 1990, the respondent Judge handed down a decision granting the petition and
decreeing as follows:
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby approves the petition and hereby confirms the de
facto adoption of Cecilia Averion by herein petitioner and her late spouse Fernando
Averion retroactive to the year 1967.
ISSUE:
W/N the petition for the judicially confirmation of the de facto adoption should be granted. No.
RULING:
The remedy pursued in Special Proceeding No. 1967 is certainly unusual as we are not aware of any
prescribed action that may be instituted for the judicial confirmation of a de facto adoption. Nor do our
adjective and substantive laws on adoption provide for such a proceeding. In fact, the only proper and
authorized procedure relative to adoption is outlined in the rule on adoption itself. That Cecilia Averion
had been treated by the petitioner and her husband as their own child during the former's minority may
only provide compelling reasons to grant the decree of adoption notwithstanding her (Cecilia's) having
attained the age of majority. This is one of the exceptions provided by the Family Code to the rule that a
person of legal age cannot be adopted.
In "confirming" the so-called de facto adoption and decreeing the same to be "retroactive to the year 1967,"
respondent Judge has carved a name for himself in history for, as already pointed out, no action or
proceeding for judicial confirmation of a de facto adoption is authorized in this jurisdiction. Furthermore,
by its very nature and purpose, a decree of adoption can never be made to retroact. Lastly, considering
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
that the petitioner's husband had died in 1987, or three years before the petition was filed, he could not
now be resurrected for purposes of the adoption, be in fact declared an adopter and be subsequently
bound by the decree to the prejudice of his heirs.
Then too, respondent Judge completely disregarded the fact that Cecilia Averion had submitted no
written consent to the adoption at the time of the filing of the petition or at any subsequent date — a
manifest infirmity. Nor was Cecilia called to testify in the case. Moreover there seems to be an irregularity
in the publication of the notice of hearing.
All told, respondent Judge completely ignored the procedural rules on adoption and promulgated
guidelines for himself to suit his own purpose and design.
WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF ADOPTION?

(1) TRANSFER OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY
 All legal ties between the biological parent(s) and the adoptee shall be severed and the
same shall then be vested on the adopter(s), EXCEPT in cases where the biological
parent is the spouse of the adopter.
 Thus, the parental authority of the parents by nature over the adopted shall terminate
and the same shall be vested in the adopters, EXCEPT if the adopter is the spouse of the
parent by nature of the adopted, in which case, the parental authority over the adopted
shall be exercised jointly by both spouses.
What happens if the adopter dies during the time that the adopted is still a minor or
incapacitated?
The parental authority of the biological parent is deemed to have been restored.
Considering that adoption is a personal relationship and that there are no collateral relatives
by adoption, there shall be no one left to care for minor adopted child if the adopter passed
away, hence, the parental authority of the biological parent shall be deemed to have been
restored8.
BERNARDINA P. BARTOLOME vs SSS and SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC.,

G.R. No. 192531 November 12, 2014
Facts:
John Colcol (John), born on June 9, 1983, was employed as electrician by Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc.,
on board the vessel Maersk Danville, since February 2008. As such, he was enrolled under the
government's Employees' Compensation Program (ECP). Unfortunately, on June 2, 2008, an accident
8
Bartolome vs SSS, G.R. No. 192531, November 12, 2014.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
occurred on board the vessel whereby steel plates fell on John, which led to his untimely death the
following day.
John was, at the time of his death, childless and unmarried. Thus, petitioner Bernardina P. Bartolome,
John’s biological mother and, allegedly, sole remaining beneficiary, filed a claim for death benefits under
PD 626 with the Social Security System (SSS) at San Fernando City, La Union. However, the SSS La Union
office, in a letter dated June 10, 2009 addressed to petitioner, denied the claim, stating:
The denial was appealed tothe Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC), which affirmed the ruling
of the SSS La Union Branch through the assailed Decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the death of the adopter during the adoptee’s minority results to the restoration of the
parental authority to the biological parents of the latter. Yes.
RULING:
True, when Cornelio, in 1985, adopted John, then about two (2) years old, petitioner’s parental authority
over John was severed. However, lest it be overlooked, one key detail the ECC missed, aside from
Cornelio’s death, was that when the adoptive parent died less than three (3) years after the adoption
decree, John was still a minor, at about four (4) years of age.
John’s minority at the time of his adopter’s death is a significant factor in the case at bar. Under such
circumstance, parental authority should be deemed to have reverted in favor of the biological parents.
Otherwise, taking into account Our consistent ruling that adoption is a personal relationship and that
there are no collateral relatives by virtue of adoption, who was then left to care for the minor adopted
child if the adopter passed away?
To be sure, reversion of parental authority and legal custody in favor of the biological parents is not a
novel concept. Section 20 of Republic Act No. 8552 (RA 8552), otherwise known as the Domestic
Adoption Act, provides:
Section 20. Effects of Rescission.– If the petition [for rescission of adoption] is granted, the parental
authority of the adoptee's biological parent(s), if known, or the legal custody of the Department shall be
restored if the adoptee is still a minor or incapacitated. The reciprocal rights and obligations of the
adopter(s) and the adoptee to each other shall be extinguished. (emphasis added)
The provision adverted to is applicable herein by analogy insofar as the restoration of custody is
concerned. The manner herein of terminating the adopter’s parental authority, unlike the grounds for
rescission, justifies the retention of vested rights and obligations between the adopter and the adoptee,
while the consequent restoration of parental authority in favor of the biological parents, simultaneously,
ensures that the adoptee, who is still a minor, is not left to fend for himself at such a tender age.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
To emphasize, We can only apply the rule by analogy, especially since RA 8552 was enacted after
Cornelio’s death. Truth be told, there is a lacuna in the law as to which provision shall govern
contingencies in all fours with the factual milieu of the instant petition. Nevertheless, We are guided by
the catena of cases and the state policies behind RA 8552 wherein the paramount consideration is the best
interest of the child, which We invoke to justify this disposition. It is, after all, for the best interest of the
child that someone will remain charged for his welfare and upbringing should his or her adopter fail or is
rendered incapacitated to perform his duties as a parent at a time the adoptee is still in his formative
years, and, to Our mind, in the absence or, as in this case, death of the adopter, no one else could
reasonably be expected to perform the role of a parent other than the adoptee’s biological one.
(2) LEGITIMACY
 The adoptee shall be considered the legitimate son/daughter of the adopter(s) for all
intents and purposes and as such is entitled to all the rights and obligations provided by
law to legitimate sons/daughters born to them without discrimination of any kind.
 HOWEVER, 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
law9.
 Neither are the children of the adopted considered as descendants of the adopter.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR, EDWIN VILLA Y MENDOZA. LUIS E.
SANTOS, JR. and EDIPOLA V. SANTOS vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-22523 September 29, 1967
FACTS: Spouses Luis and Edipola Santos filed this petition on January 8, 1963, praying that the minor
Edwin Villa y Mendoza (Edipola’s younger brother), 4 years old, be declared their son by adoption.
However, this was objected by the Solicitor General on the ground of alleged "incongruity" that will
result in the relation of the petitioner-wife and the adopted, in the circumstance that the adopted who is
the legitimate brother of the adopter, will also be her son by adoption. The theory is, therefore, advanced
that adoption among people who are related by nature should not be allowed, in order that dual
relationship should not result.
ISSUE: Whether or not an elder sister may adopt a younger brother.
RULING: Yes.
Article 335 of the Civil Code enumerates those persons who may not adopt, and it has been shown that
petitioners-appellants herein are not among those prohibited from adopting. Article 339 of the same code
names those who cannot be adopted, and the minor child whose adoption is under consideration, is not
one of those excluded by the law. Article 338, on the other hand, allows the adoption of a natural child by
the natural father or mother, of other illegitimate children by their father or mother, and of a step-child by
the step-father or stepmother.
9
Santos, Jr. vs Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-22523 September 29, 1967
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
With respect to the objection that the adoption in this particular case will result in a dual relationship
between the parties, that the adopted brother will also be the son of the adopting elder sister, that fact
alone should not prevent the adoption. One is by nature, while the other is by fiction of law. 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 as descendants of the adopter. So even
considered in relation to the rules on succession which are in pari materia, the adoption under
consideration would not be objectionable on the ground alone of the resulting relationship between the
adopter and the adopted. Similar dual relationships also result under our law on marriage when persons
who are already related, by blood or by affinity, marry each other. But as long as the relationship is not
within the degrees prohibited by law, such marriages are allowed notwithstanding the resulting dual
relationship.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR, ANA ISABEL HENRIETTE ANTONIA
CONCEPCION GEORGIANA, ISABEL VALDES JOHNSTON vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-18284 April 30, 1963
Facts:
Petitioner-appellant Isabel Valdes Johnston, filed a petition for the adoption of one Ana Isabel Henriette
Antonio Concepcion Georgiana, 2 years and 10 months old, then under the custody of the Hospicio de
San Jose, an orphanage situated in the city of Manila. The petition shows that petitioner-appellant is 48
years old, married to Raymond Arthur Johnston, Filipino, residing at 12 San Lorenzo Drive, Makati,
Rizal; that the couple are childless; that the consent of the Mother Superior of the orphanage and the
husband of petitioner-appellant was obtained.
Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved
by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not
covered by this stipulation of facts. 1äwphï1.ñët
Notice of the hearing of the petition was issued and duly published as required by law, and after hearing,
the lower court rendered a decision granting the petition, with the following dispositive part:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is granted declaring the child Ana Isabel Henriette
Antonia Concepcion Georgiana freed from all legal obligations and obedience and maintenance
with respect to its natural parents and is, to all legal intents and purposes, the child of the
petitioner, with the corresponding change of surname VALDES, which is the surname of
petitioner.
The petitioner-appellant filed a motion, praying that the surname given to the minor be "Valdes
Johnston", instead of "Valdes" only, but this motion was denied by the lower court in its order. Hence,
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
this appeal.
ISSUE:
W/N the petition to give the minors surnames of "Valdes Johnston” should be granted. No.
RULING:
We agree with the decision of the lower court authorizing or prescribing the use of the surname Valdes
by the adopted child. The provision of law (Art. 341, par. 4, Civil Code) which entitles the adopted minor
to the use of the adopter's surname, refers to the adopter's own surname and not to her surname acquired
by virtue of marriage. Petitioner-appellant's real surname is Valdes and not Johnston, and as she made
the adoption singly without the concurrence of her husband, and not as a married woman, her name as
adopter was her maiden name. The adoption created a personal relationship between the adopter and the
adopted, and the consent of Raymond Johnston, Isabel Valdes' husband, to the adoption by her
individually, did not have the effect of making him an adopting father, so as to entitle the child to the use
of Johnston's own surname.
Since adoption gives the person adopted the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the
adopter (Art. 341, par. 1, Civil Code), much confusion would indeed result, as correctly pointed out by
the Solicitor General, if the minor child herein were allowed to use the surname of the spouse who did
not join in the adoption.
For one thing, to allow the minor to adopt the surname of the husband of the adopter, would mislead the
public into believing that he had also been adopted by the husband, which is not the case. And when
later, questions of successional rights arise, the husband's consent to the adoption might be presented to
prove that he had actually joined in the adoption.
It is to forestall befuddling situations pointed out above and other possible confusing situations that may
arise in the future, that this Court is inclined to apply strictly the provision of the Civil Code to the effect
that an adopted child use the surname of the adopter himself or herself, and not that which is acquired by
marriage.
(3) SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS

 In legal and intestate succession, the adopter(s) and the adoptee shall have reciprocal
rights of succession without distinction.
 HOWEVER, if the adoptee and his/her biological parent(s) had left a will, the law on
testamentary succession shall govern.
 The adoptee remains an intestate heir of his/her biological parent.
(4) RIGHT TO USE SURNAME OF ADOPTER

 The Family Code and the Domestic Adoption Act categorically declare that the adopted
child has the right to use the surname of the adopter(s).
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
 HOWEVER, the provision of law which entitles the adopted minor to the use of the
surname of the adopter refers to the adopter’s own surname and to her surname
acquired by virtue of marriage because adoption created a personal relationship only
between the adopter and the adopted.
Circumstances where the adopted can only use the surname of the adopter’s own
surname:
a. If the wife adopts her illegitimate child with the consent of the husband. This is one
of the exceptions to the rule of joint adoption by spouses.
b. If the spouses are legally separated and only the wife files the adoption.
c. If the adoption was made by the woman prior t her marriage and thereafter she
contracted a marriage.
(5) ISSUANCE OF NEW CERTIFICATE AND FIRST NAME AND SSURNAME OF

ADOPTEE
 The adoption decree shall state the name by which the chid is to be known. An amended
certificate of birth shall be issued by the Civil Registry attesting to the fact that the
adoptee is the child of the adopter(s) by being registered with his/her surname.
 The original certificate of birth shall be stamped “cancelled” with the annotation of the
issuance of an amended birth certificate and shall be sealed in the civil registry records.
 All the records relating to the adoption proceedings shall be kept strictly confidential
and the court ma order its release under the following conditions ony:
a. The disclosure to third person is necessary for purposes connected with or arising
out of the adoption;
b. The disclosure will be for the best interest of the adoptee; and
c. The court may restrict the purposes for which it may be used.
(6) RETROACTIVE EFFECTS OF ADOPTION DECREE

 For purposes beneficial to the interest of the adopted child, the latter acquires the rights
that are being enjoyed by legitimate children as of the date of the filing of the petition for
adoption and not only at the time of the issuance of the adoption decree.
 HOWEVER, no retroactive effect may be given to the granting of the petition for
adoption for the purpose of imposing a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at a
time when adopting parents had no actual or physical custody over the adopted child 10.
MACARIO TAMARGO, CELSO TAMARGO and AURELIA TAMARGO vs CA

G.R. No. 85044 June 3, 1992
Facts:
On 20 October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, then a minor of 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air
10
Tamargo vs CA G.R. No. 85044 June 3, 1992.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
rifle causing injuries which resulted in her death. Accordingly, a civil complaint for damages was filed
with the RTC-Vigan by petitioner Macario Tamargo, Jennifer’s adopting parent, and petitioner spouses
Celso and Aurelia Tamargo, Jennifer’s natural parents, against respondent spouses Victor and Clara
Bundoc, Adelberto’s natural parents with whom he was living at the time of the tragic incident.
Prior to the incident, or on 10 December 1981, the spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura had filed a petition
to adopt the minor Adelberto Bundoc. This petition for adoption was granted on 18 November 1982, that
is, after Adelberto had shot and killed Jennifer.
In their Answer, respondent spouses Bundoc, Adelberto’s natural parents, reciting the result of the
foregoing petition for adoption, claimed that not they, but rather the adopting parents, namely the
spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura, were indispensable parties to the action since parental authority had
shifted to the adopting parents from the moment the successful petition for adoption was filed.
The trial court dismissed petitioners’ complaint, ruling that respondent natural parents of Adelberto
indeed were not indispensable parties to the action.
Petitioners went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for mandamus and certiorari questioning the trial
court’s Decision. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that petitioners had lost their right
to appeal.
In the present Petition for Review, petitioners once again contend that respondent spouses Bundoc are
the indispensable parties to the action for damages caused by the acts of their minor child, Adelberto
Bundoc.
ISSUE:
WON 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.
No.
RULING:
The shooting of Jennifer by Adelberto with an air rifle occured when parental authority was still lodged
in respondent Bundoc spouses, the natural parents of the minor Adelberto. It would thus follow that the
natural parents who had then actual custody of the minor Adelberto, are the indispensable parties to the
suit for damages.
The natural parents of Adelberto, however, stoutly maintain that because a decree of adoption was issued
by the adoption court in favor of the Rapisura spouses, parental authority was vested in the latter as
adopting parents as of the time of the filing of the petition for adoption that is, before Adelberto had shot
Jennifer which an air rifle. The Bundoc spouses contend that they were therefore free of any parental
responsibility for Adelberto's allegedly tortious conduct.
Under the Civil Code, the basis of parental liability for the torts of a minor child is the relationship
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
existing between the parents and the minor child living with them and over whom, the law presumes, the
parents exercise supervision and control. Article 58 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, re-enacted this
rule:
Article 58 Torts — Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the
child under their parental authority in accordance with the civil Code. (Emphasis supplied)
Article 221 of the Family Code of the Philippines has similarly insisted upon the requisite that the child,
doer of the tortious act, shall have beer in the actual custody of the parents sought to be held liable for the
ensuing damage:
Art. 221. 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. (Emphasis supplied)
We do not believe that parental authority is properly regarded as having been retroactively transferred to
and vested in the adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, at the time the air rifle shooting happened. We
do not consider that retroactive effect may 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 affect 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.
In the instant case, however, to hold that parental authority had been retroactively lodged in the Rapisura
spouses so as to burden them with liability for a tortious act that they could not have foreseen and which
they could not have prevented (since they were at the time in the United States and had no physical
custody over the child Adelberto) would be unfair and unconscionable. Such a result, moreover, would
be inconsistent with the philosophical and policy basis underlying the doctrine of vicarious liability. Put a
little differently, no presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adopting parents, the Rapisura
spouses, could have arisen since Adelberto was not in fact subject to their control at the time the tort was
committed.
Article 35 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code fortifies the conclusion reached above. Article 35
provides as follows:
Art. 35. Trial Custody. — No petition for adoption shall be finally granted unless and until
the adopting parents are given by the courts a supervised trial custody period of at least six
months to assess their adjustment and emotional readiness for the legal union. During the
period of trial custody, parental authority shall be vested in the adopting parents. (Emphasis
supplied)
Under the above Article 35, parental authority is provisionally vested in the adopting parents during the
period of trial custody, i.e., before the issuance of a decree of adoption, precisely because the adopting
parents are given actual custody of the child during such trial period. In the instant case, the trial custody
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
period either had not yet begun or bad already been completed at the time of the air rifle shooting; in any
case, actual custody of Adelberto was then with his natural parents, not the adopting parents.
RESCISSION OF DECREE OF ADOPTION
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.

Section 20. Venue. – The petition shall be filed with the Family Court of the city or province where the
adoptee resides.
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.
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.
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.
It shall also order the adoptee to use the name stated in his original birth or foundling certificate.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
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.
Who may rescind?

1. Adoptee
a. Over 18 years of age
b. Over 18 years of age but incapacitated – must be made with the assistance of
guardian or counsel
c. 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.
May an adoption made under the old law be rescinded upon the instance of the adopter
under the new adoption law?
LAHOM vs SIBULO
GR No. 143989 July 14, 2003
Facts:
The childless spouses Dr. Diosdado Lahom and Isabelita Lahom adopted the wife's nephew and brought
him up as their own. In 1972, the trial court granted the petition for adoption, and ordered the Civil
Registrar to change the name Jose Melvin Sibulo to Jose Melvin Lahom.
Mrs. Lahom averred, that, despite her pleas and that of her husband, their adopted son refused to use
their surname Lahom and continue to use Sibulo in all his dealing and activities. These turn of events
revealing Jose's callous indifference, ingratitude and lack of care and concern prompted Mrs. Lahom to
file a petition in Court in December 1999 to rescind the decree of adoption previously issued way back on
May 5, 1972. When Mrs. Lahom filed said petition there was already a new law on adoption, specifically
R.A. 8552 also known as the Domestic Adoption Act passed on March 22,1998, 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".
ISSUE:
W/N the petition for rescission of the decree of adoption should be granted. No.
RULING:
The concept of "vested right" is a consequence of the constitutional guaranty of due process that expresses
a present fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice is protected against arbitrary state action; it
includes not only legal or equitable title to the enforcement of a demand but also exemptions from new
obligations created after the right has become vested. Rights are considered vested when the right to
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
enjoyment is a present interest, absolute, unconditional, and perfect or fixed and irrefutable.
It was months after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552 that herein petitioner filed an action to revoke the
decree of adoption granted in 1975. By then, the new law, had already abrogated and repealed the right of
an adopter under the Civil Code and the Family Code to rescind a decree of adoption. Consistently with
its earlier pronouncements, the Court should now hold that the action for rescission of the adoption
decree, having been initiated by petitioner after R.A. No. 8552 had come into force, no longer could be
pursued.
While R.A. No. 8552 has unqualifiedly withdrawn from an adopter a consequential right to rescind the
adoption decree even in cases where the adoption might clearly turn out to be undesirable, it remains,
nevertheless, the bounden duty of the Court to apply the law. Dura lex sed lex would be the hackneyed
truism that those caught in the law have to live with. It is still noteworthy, however, that 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. For instance, upon the grounds recognized
by law, an adopter may deny to an adopted child his legitime and, by a will and testament, may freely
exclude him from having a share in the disposable portion of his estate.
Grounds for Rescission (RASA)

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.
Prescriptive period:
a. If incapacitated, within 5 years after the adopted reaches the age of majority;
b. If incompetent at the time of the adoption, within 5 years after recovery from such
incompetency.
Effects of Rescission
(1) Parental authority of the adoptee’s biological parent(s), if known, or the legal custody of
the DSWD shall be restored if the adoptee is still a minor or incapacitated;
(2) Reciprocal rights and obligations of the adopter(s) and the adoptee to each other shall be
extinguished;
(3) Cancellation of the amended certificate of birth of the adoptee and restoration of his/her
original birth certificate; and
(4) Succession rights shall revert to its status prior to adoption, but only as of the date of
judgment of judicial rescission. Vested rights acquired prior to judicial rescission shall be
respected.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION
Applicability:
 Inter-country Adoption Act applies to adoption of Filipino children by a foreign

nationals; and
 Adoption of Filipino children by Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad.
Objectives:
a) Consider inter-country adoption as an alternative means of child care, if the child
cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot, in any suitable manner,
be cared for in the Philippines;
b) Ensure that the child subject of inter-country adoption enjoys the same protection
accorded to children in domestic adoption; and
c) Take all measures to ensure that the placement arising therefrom does not result in
improper financial gain for those involved.
Nota Bene: Preference in favor of domestic adoption: it is a basic policy of the State to
encourage domestic adoption of a Filipino child for the purpose of preserving the child’s
identity and culture. Hence, inter-country adoption shall be resorted to only when domestic
adoption of the child is not available and inter-country adoption is in the best interest of the
child.
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;
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
(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.
a) FILIPINO CITIZEN who is:

a. Permanent resident of a foreign country;
b. Has the capacity to act and assume all rights and responsibilities of parental
authority under Philippine laws;
c. Has undergone the appropriate counselling from an accredited counsellor in country
of domicile;
d. Has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
e. Eligible to adopt under Philippine law;
f. In a position to provide 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
regulation issued to implement the provisions of the ICAA;
h. Residing in a country with whom the Philippines has diplomatic relations and
whose government maintains a similarly authorized and accredited agency and that
adoption is allowed that country;
i. Possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided in ICAA
and in other applicable Philippine laws;
j. At least 27 years of age at the time of the application; and
k. At least 16 years older than the child to be adopted UNLESS:
 Adopter is the parent by nature of the child to be adopted; or

 Adopter is the spouse of the parent by nature of the child to be adopted.
b) ALIENS provided that:
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
a. At least 27 years of age at the time of the application;

b. At least 16 years older than the child to be adopted UNLESS:
 Adopter is the parent by nature of the child to be adopted; or

 Adopter is the spouse of the parent by nature of the child to be adopted.
c. Has the capacity to act and assume all rights and responsibilities of parental
authority under his national law;
d. Has undergone the appropriate counselling from an accredited counsellor in his/her
country;
e. Has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
f. Eligible to adopt under his/her national law;
g. In a position to provide proper care and support and to give the necessary moral
values and example to all his children, including the child to be adopted;
h. 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
regulation issued to implement the provisions of the ICAA;
i. Comes from a country with whom 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
j. Possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided in ICAA
and in other applicable Philippine laws.
MARRIED PERSON MUST JOINTLY ADOPT WITH HIS/HER SPOUSE

General Rule: if the Adopter is married, his/her spouse must jointly file for the
adoption.
Who may be adopted?

Section 29. Who may be adopted. – Only a child legally available for domestic adoption may be
the subject of inter-country adoption.
 A child legally available for adoption, or a child in whose favor a certification was issued
by the DSWD11 that he/she is legally available for adoption after the fact of abandonment
or neglect has been proven through submission of pertinent documents, or one who has
voluntarily committed by his/her parent(s) or legal guardian.
 The child may either be a person below 18 year of age or a person over 18 years of age
but is unable to fully take care him/herself or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of physical or mental disability or
condition.
11
Republic Act No. 9523 amending some provisions of RA No. 8552 and RA No. 8043.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
Section 28. Where to File Petition. – A verified petition to adopt a Filipino child may be filed by a foreign
national or Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad with the Family Court having jurisdiction over
the place where the child resides or may be found.
It may be filed directly with the Inter-Country Adoption Board.
Section 30. Contents of Petition. – The petitioner must allege:

a) his age and the age of the child to be adopted, showing that he 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 petitioner is the parent by nature of the child to be adopted or the spouse of such
parent, in which case the age difference does not apply;
b) if married, the name of the spouse who must be joined as co-petitioner except when the adoptee
is a legitimate child of his spouse;
c) that he 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 country;
d) that he has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
e) that he is eligible to adopt under his national law;
f) that he can provide the proper care and support and instill the necessary moral values and
example to all his children, including the child to be adopted;
g) that he agrees to uphold the basic rights of the child, as embodied under Philippine laws and the
U. N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to abide by the rules and regulations issued to
implement the provisions of Republic Act No. 8043;
h) that he comes from a country with which the Philippines has diplomatic relations and whose
government maintains a similarly authorized and accredited agency and that adoption of a
Filipino child is allowed under his national laws; and
i) that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided in this Rule, in
Republic Act No. 8043 and in all other applicable Philippine laws.
PETITION TO ADOPT:
 Form – VERIFIED
 Who may be adopted – Filipino child legally available for domestic adoption
 Who may adopt –
 Foreign national;
 Filipino permanently residing abroad.
VENUE
1. FAMILY COURT
a. Of the place where adoptee resides or may be found.
Note: in inter-country adoption, it is filed in the place of adoptee but in domestic

adoption you file it in the place of the adopter. It is precisely because the adopters are
not residing in the Philippines. They are foreigners or permanently residing abroad.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
2. INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION BOARD, through an intermediate agency, whether

governmental or an authorized and accredited agency, in the country of the prospective
adoptive parents.
Section 30. Contents of Petition. – The petitioner must allege:

a) his age and the age of the child to be adopted, showing that he 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 petitioner is the parent by nature of the child to be adopted or the spouse of such
parent, in which case the age difference does not apply;
b) if married, the name of the spouse who must be joined as co-petitioner except when the adoptee
is a legitimate child of his spouse;
c) that he 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 country;
d) that he has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
e) that he is eligible to adopt under his national law;
f) that he can provide the proper care and support and instill the necessary moral values and
example to all his children, including the child to be adopted;
g) that he agrees to uphold the basic rights of the child, as embodied under Philippine laws and the
U. N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to abide by the rules and regulations issued to
implement the provisions of Republic Act No. 8043;
h) that he comes from a country with which the Philippines has diplomatic relations and whose
government maintains a similarly authorized and accredited agency and that adoption of a
Filipino child is allowed under his national laws; and
i) that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided in this Rule, in
Republic Act No. 8043 and in all other applicable Philippine laws.
Section 31. Annexes. - The petition for adoption shall contain the following annexes written and officially
translated in English:
a) Birth certificate of petitioner;
b) Marriage contract, if married, and, if applicable, the divorce decree, or judgment dissolving the
marriage;
c) Sworn statement of consent of petitioner’s biological or adopted children above ten (10) years
of age;
d) Physical, medical and psychological evaluation of the petitioner certified by a duly licensed
physician and psychologist;
e) Income tax returns or any authentic document showing the current financial capability of the
petitioner;
f) Police clearance of petitioner issued within six (6) months before the filing of the petitioner;
g) Character reference from the local church/minister, the petitioner’s employer and a member of
the immediate community who have known the petitioner for at least five (5) years;
h) Full body postcard-size pictures of the petitioner and his immediate family taken at least six (6)
months before the filing of the petition.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
Consent Required: Written consent of the following to the adoption is required, in the form of
an affidavit:
1. ADOPTER’S CHILDREN – the written consent of the adopter’s biological or adopted

children above 10 years of age, in the form of sworn statement is required to be attached
to the application to be filed with the Family Court of Inter-Country Adoption Board
(ICAB).
2. DSWD – 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.
Section 32. Duty of Court. – The court, after finding that the petition is sufficient in form and substance
and a proper case for inter-country adoption, shall immediately transmit the petition to the Inter-Country
Adoption Board for appropriate action.
Sec. 14. Supervision of Trial Custody. — The governmental agency or the authorized and accredited
agency in the country of the adoptive parents which filed the application for inter-country adoption shall
be responsible for the trial custody and the care of the child. It shall also provide family counseling and
other related services. The trial custody shall be for a period of six (6) months from the time of placement.
Only after the lapse of the period of trial custody shall a decree of adoption be issued in the said country
a copy of which shall be sent to the Board to form part of the records of the child.
During the trial custody, the adopting parent(s) shall submit to the governmental agency or the
authorized and accredited agency, which shall in turn transmit a copy to the Board, a progress report of
the child's adjustment. The progress report shall be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not to
issue the decree of adoption.
The Department of Foreign Affairs shall set up a system by which Filipino children sent abroad for trial
custody are monitored and checked as reported by the authorized and accredited inter-country adoption
agency as well as the repatriation to the Philippines of a Filipino child whose adoption has not been
approved.
Trial Custody:
b. This process takes place outside of the country and under the supervision of the foreign
adoption agency;
c. For a period of six (6) months;
d. If unsuccessful, ICAB shall look for another prospective applicant. Repatriation of the
child is to be resorted only as a last resort.
e. If successful ICAB transmits a written consent for the adoption to be executed by the
DSWD and the applicant then files a petition for adoption in his/her country.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
DISTINGUISH DOMESTIC ADOPTION FROM INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION
DOMESTIC ADOPTION INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION

Governed by RA 8552, the Domestic Adoption Governed by RA 8043, the Inter-Country
Act of 1998 (DAA). Adoption Act of 1995 (ICAA).
Applies to domestic adoption of Filipino Applies to adoption of a Filipino child in a
children, where the entire adoption process foreign country, where the petition for
beginning from the filing of the petition up to adoption is filed, the supervised trial custody
the issuance of the adoption decree takes is undertaken and the decree of adoption is
place in the Philippines. issued outside of the Philippines.
WHO MAY BE ADOPTED
1) A child legally available for adoption, or a 1) A child legally available for adoption, or
child in whose favor a certification was a child in whose favor a certification was
issued by the DSWD that he/she is legally issued by the DSWD that he/she is
available for adoption after the fact of legally available for adoption after the
abandonment or neglect has been proven fact of abandonment or neglect has been
through submission of pertinent proven through submission of pertinent
documents, or one who has voluntarily documents, or one who has voluntarily
committed by his/her parent(s) or legal committed by his/her parent(s) or legal
guardian. guardian.
The child may either be a person below 18 The child may either be a person below 18
year of age or a person over 18 years of age year of age or a person over 18 years of age
but is unable to fully take care him/herself but is unable to fully take care him/herself or
or protect himself/herself from abuse, protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because
discrimination because of physical or of physical or mental disability or condition.
mental disability or condition.
2) The legitimate son/daughter of one spouse

by the other spouse;
3) An illegitimate son/daughter by a qualified
adopter to improve his/her status to that of
legitimacy;
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
4) A person of legal age if, prior to the

adoption, said person has been
consistently considered and treated by the
adopter(s) as his/her own child since
minority;
5) A child whose adoption has been
previously rescinded; or
6) A child whose biological or adoptive
parent(s) has died: Provided, That no
proceedings shall be initiated within six (6)
months from the time of death of said
parent(s).
WHO MAY ADOPT
A. FILIPINO CITIZENS A. FILIPINO CITIZENS
a) Of legal age; a. Permanent resident of a foreign
b) With full civil capacity and legal rights; country;
c) Of good moral character; b. Has the capacity to act and assume all
d) Has not been convicted of any crime rights and responsibilities of parental
involving moral turpitude; authority under Philippine laws;
e) Emotionally and psychologically c. Has undergone the appropriate
capable of caring for children; counselling from an accredited
f) At least 16 years older than the adoptee counsellor in country of domicile;
unless the biological parent of adoptee d. Has not been convicted of a crime
or the spouse of said parent; and involving moral turpitude;
g) In a position to support and care for his e. Eligible to adopt under Philippine law;
children in keeping with the means of f. In a position to provide proper care
the family. 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 regulation issued to
implement the provisions of the ICAA;
h. Residing in a country with whom the
Philippines has diplomatic relations
and whose government maintains a
similarly authorized and accredited
agency and that adoption is allowed
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
that country;
i. Possesses all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications provided
in ICAA and in other applicable
Philippine laws;
j. At least 27 years of age at the time of
the application; and
k. At least 16 years older than the child to
be adopted UNLESS:
 Adopter is the parent by nature of the

child to be adopted; or
 Adopter is the spouse of the parent by
nature of the child to be adopted.
B. ALIENS B. ALIENS
Qualifications: Same qualifications for a. At least 27 years of age at the time of
Filipino nationals and in addition – the application;
b. At least 16 years older than the child
a. His/her country has diplomatic to be adopted UNLESS:
relations with the Philippines;
b. His/her government allows the  Adopter is the parent by nature of the
adoptee to enter his/her country as child to be adopted; or
his/her adopted son/daughter;  Adopter is the spouse of the parent by
c. Has been living in the Philippines for nature of the child to be adopted.
atleast 3 continuous years prior to the
filing of the application for adoption c. Has the capacity to act and assume all
and maintains such residence until the rights and responsibilities of parental
adoption decree is entered and authority under his national law;
d. Has been certified by his/her d. Has undergone the appropriate
diplomatic or consular office or any counselling from an accredited
appropriate governmental agency that counsellor in his/her country;
he/she has the legal capacity to adopt e. Has not been convicted of a crime
in his/her country. involving moral turpitude;
f. Eligible to adopt under his/her
Reminder: The requirements on residency and national law;
certification of the alien’s qualification to g. In a position to provide proper care
adopt in his/her country may be waived if: and support and to give the necessary
moral values and example to all his
(a) A former Filipino citizen seeks to adopt children, including the child to be
th
a relative within the 4 degree of adopted;
consanguinity or affinity; h. Agrees to uphold the basic rights of
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
(b) One seeks to adopt the legitimate the child as embodied under
son/daughter of his/her spouse; Philippine laws, the U.N. Convention
(c) One who is married to a Filipino on the Rights of the Child, and to
citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with abide by the rules and regulation
his/her spouse a relative within the 4th issued to implement the provisions of
degree of consanguinity or affinity of the ICAA;
the Filipino spouse. i. Comes from a country with whom
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
j. Possesses all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications provided
in ICAA and in other applicable
Philippine laws.
PROCEDURE
Where to file application: in the Family Court Where to file application: Either in:
of the province or city where the prospective a. Family Court having jurisdiction over
parents reside. the place where the child resides or
may be found; or
b. Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB)
through an intermediate agency,
whether governmental or an
authorized and accredited agency, in
the country of the prospective adoptive
parents.
After Filing: The petition shall not be set for After Filing:
hearing without a case study report by a a. If filed in the Family Court, court
licensed social worker. determines the sufficiency of petition
in respect to form and substance, after
which, petition I transmitted to ICAB;
b. If petition is already with ICAB, it
conducts matching of the applicant
with an adoptive child;
c. After matchmaking, the child is
personally fetched by the applicant for
the trial custody which takes place
outside of the Philippines.
Supervised Trial Custody: Supervised Trial Custody:
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION
Special Proceedings
a. Temporary parental authority is vested a. This process takes place outside of the
in prospective adopter; country and under the supervision of
b. The period is for atleast 6 months, but the foreign adoption agency;
may be reduced by the court motu b. For a period of six (6) months;
proprio or upon motion; c. If unsuccessful, ICAB shall look for
c. If adopter is alien, the law mandatorily another prospective applicant.
requires completion of the 6months Repatriation of the child is to be
trial custody and may not be reduced, resorted only as a last resort.
EXCEPT IF: d. If successful ICAB transmits a written
 A former Filipino citizen seeks to consent for the adoption to be executed
adopt a relative within the 4th by the DSWD and the applicant then
degree of consanguinity or affinity; files a petition for adoption in his/her
 One seeks to adopt the legitimate country.
son/daughter of his/her spouse;
 One who is married to a Filipino
citizen and seeks to adopt jointly
with his/her spouse a relative
within the 4th degree of
consanguinity or affinity of the
Filipino spouse.
Decree of Adoption: Is issued by Philippine Decree of Adoption: Is issued by a foreign
Family Court. court.
GROUP 2 - ADOPTION

Special Proceedings: Adoption Concept

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Proceedings: Adoption Concept

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Proceedings

Atty. Raia Angelie A. Tumanda 2nd Semester SY 2019-2020

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE NATHY ASTORGA GARCIA

BENIGNO MANUEL, ET.AL. vs HON. NICODEMO T. FERRER

DELGADO VDA. DE DE LA ROSA, ET.AL vs HEIRS OF MARCIANA RUSTIA VDA. DE DAMIAN

IN RE: ADOPTION OF CHILD BAPTIZED UNDER THE NAME OF ROSE,

Article 335 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, provides that:

"The following cannot adopt:

(4) Non-resident aliens;".

CELERINO YU SECO vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Governing Laws on Adoption

 Republic Act No. 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998

 Republic Act No. 8043 or the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995

Definitions (RA 8552):

 “FOUNDLING” - refers to a deserted or abandoned infant or child whose parents,

 “DEPENDENT CHILD” refers to one who is without a parent, guardian or custodian or

 “CHILD” refers to a person:

(b) There is emotional neglect when the child is maltreated, raped,

 “VOLUNTARILY COMMITTED CHILD” is one whose parent(s) or legal guardian

 “CHILD LEGALLY AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION” refers to a child in whose favor a

Who may Adopt?

Section 4. Who may adopt. – The following may adopt:

(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.

(1) FILIPINO CITIZEN provided he/she:

(2) ALIEN who has:

a. the same qualifications as Filipino citizens;

EXCEPTIONS: the residency requirement for foreigners under the Domestic

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs HON. CONCEPCION S. ALARCON VERGARA, ET. AL.

Art. 184. The following persons may not adopt:

xxx xxx xxx

(3) An alien, except:

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

MARRIED PERSON MUST JOINTLY ADOPT WITH HIS/HER SPOUSE

IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHAEL and MONINA LIM

SEC. 7. Who May Adopt. - The following may adopt:

Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:

(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.

SEC. 7. Who May Adopt. — The following may adopt:

Who may be Adopted?

(b) The legitimate son/daughter of one spouse by the other spouse;

(c) An illegitimate son/daughter by a qualified adopter to improve his/her status to that of

(e) A child whose adoption has been previously rescinded; or

Requirement of Certification Declaring Child Legally Available for Adoption:

a. Adoption of an illegitimate child by any of his/her biological parent;

a. The jurisdictional facts

2) If the adopter is an alien, the petition shall allege the following:

(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.

In all petitions, it shall be alleged:

B. Affidavit of consent of the following:

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

DIWATA RAMOS LANDINGIN vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

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

(e) The spouse, if any, of the person adopting or to be adopted.

Art. 31 of P.D. No. 603 provides —

(1) The person to be adopted, if fourteen years of age or, over;

(1) The person to be adopted, if fourteen years of age or over;

(3) The Ministry of Social Services and Development or any duly

(1) The person to be adopted, if ten years of age or over;

(5) The spouse, if any, of the person adopting or to be adopted.

3. ADOPTER’S CHILDREN – the consent of the adopter’s other children is necessary

4. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN LIVING WITH THE ADOPTER

5. SPOUSE of the adopter or adoptee.