Landingin v. Republic (2006) Callejo, Sr. J.

Summary: Diwata wants to adopt her nieces and nephew. Their father (her brother) was already dead and their mother abandoned them. The RTC granted Diwatas petition. But the CA and later on, SC ruled otherwise. The SC held that the adoption decree cannot be granted due to the lack of written consent of their surviving mother, the absence of admissible evidence showing the written consent of the consent of Di watas children and Diwatas failure to establish her capability to support the supposed adoptees. Facts:

Diwata Ramos Landingin, US citizen, of Filipino parentage and a resident of Guam, filed a petition for the adoption of minors Elaine, Elma and Eugune Ramos. They are the natural children of Manuel Ramos (brother of Diwata) and Amelia Ramos. She alleged that the children were in the custody of their paternal grandmother (Maria) after the death of their father and that Amelia were no longer in communication with her children after she went to Italy and remarried there. Grandmother Maria died, and now Diwata desires to adopt the children. Upon order of the court, the DSWD conducted a case study (pursuant to Art. 34 of PD 603). Unopposed, petitioner presented her evidence ex parte consisting of: o Her own testimony o Testimony of Elaine, eldest of the adoptees, regarding their written consent to the adoption o Affidavit of Consent executed by her own children The DSWD report recommended the adoption of the children stating among others that Amelia (surviving parent) voluntarily consented to their adoption. Diwata, on the other hand, fails to present Pagbilao, DSWD officer who conducted the study and interviewed Amelia. She also failed to present documentary evidenc e to prove Amelias assent to the adoption. The lower court granted the petition. The OSG then appealed to the CA, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the petition for adoption despite: o The lack of consent of the surviving parent o The lack of written consent of the petitioners children o Petitioners failure to establish that she is in a position to support the children CA reversed RTC ruling.

Issue: W/N the decree of adoption should be granted Held: No. Ratio: 1.

Re: lack of consent of surviving parent The written consent of the biological parents is indispensable for the validity of a decree of adoption. (cf Sec. 9 of RA 8552) 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. IN THIS CASE: Pagbilao declared that she was able to interview Amelia. However, Pagbilao did not bother to require Amelia to execute a written consent. Also, Diwata failed to present Amelia as witness in support of the petition. Diwatas contention that Amelias written consent is no longer necessary because she has already abandoned her children must be rejected. When Diwata filed her petition, RA 8552 was already in effect. The law requires the written consent of the biological parents, otherwise, no decree of adoption may be granted. Diwata also failed to offer in evidence Pagbilaos Report.

2.

Lack of written consent of petitioners children Diwata also failed to offer in evidence the Joint Affidavit of Consent executed by her children. She also failed to prove its authenticity. The joint written consent of petitioners children was notarized on January 16, 2002 in Guam, USA; for it to be treated by the Rules of Court in the same way as a document notarized in this country it needs to comply with Section 2 of Act No. 2103. Re: capability of petitioner to support the children Petitioner contradicts this by claiming that she is financially capable as she has worked in Guam for 14 years, has savings, a house, and currently earns $5.15 an hour with tips of not less than $1,000.00 a month. Her children and siblings have likewise committed themselves to provide financial backing should the need arise. The OSG banks on the statement in the Home Study Report that "petitioner has limited income." SC: Accordingly, it appears that she will rely on the financial backing of her children and siblings in order to support the minor adoptees. The law, however, states that it is the adopter who should be in a position to provide support in keeping with the means of the family.

3.