ADOPTION CASES 1. Reyes vs.

Sotero (Special Proceedings Adoption) 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 allegedl! in the possession of petitioner Ana "o!ce S Re!es# a grandniece of the deceased Petitioner Re!es filed an $pposition to the petition# claiming that she was an adopted child of Lising and the latter%s hus&and and asserting that the petition &e dismissed since she was the onl! heir of Lising who passed awa! without lea'ing an! de&ts Su&se(uentl!# petitioner filed a Supplement to the $pposition attaching thereto the certification of her adoption from the local ci'il registrar%s office that the adoption decree was registered therein and also a cop! of a "udicial Form and a certification issued &! the cler) of court that the decree was on file in the *eneral +oc)et of the R,C-,arlac Respondents filed a Comment to the opposition stating that reasona&le dou&ts ha'e &een cast on Petitioner%s claim that she was legall! adopted due allegedl! to certain .&adges of fraud / ,he appellate court refused to dismiss the proceeding &ecause it was incum&ent upon the petitioner to pro'e &efore the trial court that she was indeed adopted &! the +elos Santos spouse since# .imputations of irregularities permeating the adoption decree render its authenticit! under a cloud of dou&t / 0ssue: 1$2 petitioner had to pro'e the 'alidit! of her adoption due to imputations of irregularities 3eld: 2o Petitioner need not pro'e her legal adoption &! an! e'idence other than those which she had alread! presented &efore the trial court An adoption decree is a pu&lic document re(uired &! law to &e entered into pu&lic records# the official repositor! of which# as well as all other 4udicial pronouncements affecting the status of indi'iduals# is the local ci'il registrar%s office as well as the court which rendered the 4udgment +ocuments consisting of entries in pu&lic records made in the performance of a dut! &! a pu&lic officer are prima facie e'idence of the facts therein stated As such# the certifications issued &! the local ci'il registrar and the cler)

of court regarding details of petitioner%s adoption which are entered in the records )ept under their official custod!# are prima facie e'idence of the facts contained therein ,hese certifications suffice as proof of the fact of petitioner%s adoption &! the +elos Santos spouses until contradicted or o'ercome &! sufficient e'idence 5ere .imputations of irregularities/ will not cast a .cloud of dou&t/ on the adoption decree since the certifications and its contents are presumed 'alid until proof to the contrar! is offered

2. Landingan vs. Repub i! (Special Proceedings A&andonment) Adoption: Consent and

Facts: +iwata Ramos Landingin# a 6S citi7en of Filipino parentage filed a petition for the adoption of 8 minors# natural children of 5anuel Ramos# the former%s &rother# and Amelia Ramos She alleged in her petition that when her &rother died# the children were left to their paternal grandmother for their &iological mother went to 0tal!# remarried there and now has 9 children &! her second marriage and no longer communicates from the time she left up to the institution of the adoption After the paternal grandmother passed awa!# the minors were &eing supported &! the petitioner and her children a&road and ga'e their written consent for their adoption A Social 1or)er of the +S1+ su&mitted a Report recommending for the adoption and narrated that Amelia# the &iological mother was consulted with the adoption plan and after weighing the &enefits of adoption to her children# she 'oluntaril! consented 3owe'er# petitioner failed to present the said social wor)er as witness and offer in e'idence the 'oluntar! consent of Amelia Ramos to the adoption Petitioner also failed to present an! documentar! e'idence to pro'e that Amelia assent to the adoption 0ssue: 1$2 a petition for adoption &e granted without the written consent of the adoptee%s &iological mother 3eld: 2o Section :# par (&) of RA ;<<9# pro'ides that the consent of the &iological parent(s) of the child# if )nown is necessar! to the adoption ,he written consent of the legal guardian will suffice if the written consent of the &iological parents cannot &e o&tained ,he general re(uirement of consent and notice to the natural parents is intended to protect the natural parental relationship from unwarranted interference &! interlopers# and to insure the opportunit! to safeguard the &est interests of the child in the manner of the proposed adoption

,he written consent of the &iological parents is indispensa&le for the 'alidit! of the decree of adoption 0ndeed# the natural right of a parent to his child re(uires that his consent must &e o&tained &efore his parental rights and duties ma! &e terminated and re-esta&lish in adopti'e parents 0n this case# petitioner failed to su&mit the written consent of Amelia Ramos to the adoption 5oreo'er# a&andonment means neglect and refusal to perform the filial and legal o&ligations of lo'e and support 5erel! permitting the child to remain for a time undistur&ed in the care of others is not such a&andonment ,o dispense with the re(uirements of consent# the a&andonment must &e shown to ha'e e=isted at the time of adoption

Facts: Respondent father# a doctor of medicine and petitioner mother# a registered nurse wor)ing in the 6S are married couples who are separated in fact with onl! one child Petitioner filed a petition for ha&eas corpus as)ing respondent to surrender the custod! of their son ,he R,C issued an $rder awarding custod! of the one-!ear old child to his mother# citing the second paragraph of Article 9>8 of the Famil! Code 6pon appeal &! the father# the Court of Appeals re'ersed the trial court%s order and awarded custod! of the &o! to him ruling that there were enough reasons to den! petitioner custod! o'er the child e'en under se'en !ears old 0t held that granting custod! to the &o!%s father would &e for the child%s &est interest and welfare Article 9>8# par 9# pro'ides in case of separation of parents that no child under A !ears of age shall &e separated from the mother# unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise Rule ::# Section B of the Re'ised Rules of Court also states that .2o child under se'en !ears of age shall &e separated from the mother# unless the court finds there are compelling reasons therefore 0ssue: 1$2 custod! of the child is to &e gi'en to the father 3eld: 2o ,he pro'isions of the law clearl! mandate that a child under se'en !ears of age shall not &e separated from his mother unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise ,he use of the word .shall/ in Article 9>8 of the Famil! Code and Rule ::# Sec B of the Re'ised Rules of Court connotes a mandator! character Couples who are separated in fact are co'ered within the term separation ,he Famil! Code in re'erting to the pro'ision of the Ci'il Code that a child &elow se'en !ears old shall not &e separated from the mother (Article 8B8)# has e=pressl! repealed the earlier Article >A# par 8 of the Child and !outh 1elfare Code which reduced the child%s age to < !ears

". Repub i! vs. #i er (Special Proceedings Adoption &! aliens# 'ested rights) Facts: $n "ul! 9:# >:;;# Spouses 5iller# &oth American citi7ens# filed with the R,C# Angeles Cit! a 'erified petition to adopt a Filipino child under the pro'ision of the Child and ?outh 1elfare Code which allows aliens to adopt ,he natural parents e=ecuted affida'its gi'ing their irre'oca&le consent to the adoption and the +S1+ recommended appro'al of the petition on the &asis of its e'aluation $n August 8# >::;# the Famil! Code &ecame effecti'e# prohi&iting the adoption of a Filipino child &! aliens ,he Solicitor *eneral appealed to the granting of the petition for adoption &! the R,C 0ssue: 1$2 aliens ma! &e allowed to adopt when the petition for adoption was filed prior to the effecti'it! of the Famil! Code prohi&iting the same 3eld: ?es An alien (ualified to adopt under the Child and ?outh 1elfare Code# which was in force at the time of the filing of the petition# ac(uired a 'ested right which could not &e affected &! the su&se(uent enactment of a new law dis(ualif!ing him @ested right include not onl! legal or e(uita&le title to the enforcement of a demand# &ut also an e=emption from new o&ligations created after the right has 'ested

&. Santos' et a . vs. Aran%anso' et a .' $. Pere% vs. CA (Special Proceedings Custod!: A child under se'en !ears shall not &e separated from his mother) Special Proceedings Adoption: Consent# A&andonment and Collateral Attac)) Facts: A petition for adoption of Paulina# >A !ears old and Aurora Santos# ; !ears old# was filed &! Simplicio Santos and "uliana Re!es in the CF0 of 5anila 0t was alleged that &oth parents of the minors ha'e long &een unheard from

and could not &e found in spite of diligent efforts to locate themC that since the war said minors ha'e &een a&andonedC and that for !ears since their infanc!# said children ha'e &een continuousl! &een in petitioners% care and custod! ,he consent to the adoption has &een gi'en &! the guardian ad litem appointed &! the Court After due pu&lication and hearing# the adoption court granted the petition for the adoption Su&se(uentl! eight !ears later "uliana Re!es died intestate Simplicio Santos filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the former# stating among other things that the sur'i'ing heirs of the deceased are: he# Paulina Santos and Aurora Santos 3e also as)ed that he &e appointed administrator of the estate *regoria Aran7anso# alleging to &e the first cousin of the deceased# filed an opposition to the petition for appointment of administrator# asserting among others that the adoption of Paulina and Aurora Santos is 'oid a& initio for want of the written consent of their parents# who were then li'ing and had not a&andoned them +emetria @entura# alleging li)ewise to &e the first cousin of the deceased and mother of Paulina opposed also the petition of Simplicio and adopted the pleadings filed &! Aran7anso ,he Court of Appeals sustained respondent-oppositors right to ma)e a collateral attac) against the adoption decree on the ground of failure to o&tain the consent of the natural parents was a 4urisdictional defect rendering the adoption 'oid a& initio 0ssue: 1$2 a decree of adoption could &e assailed collaterall! in a settlement proceeding 3eld: 2o Firstl!# consent of the parents is not an a&solute re(uisite if child was a&andoned# consent &! the guardian ad litem suffices Second# in adoption proceedings# a&andonment imports .an! conduct on the part of the parent which e'inces a settled purpose to forgo all parental duties and relin(uish all parental claims to the child / 0t means neglect or refusal to perform the natural and legal o&ligations of care and support which parents owe to their children / ,hird# the settled rule is that e'en when the 4urisdiction of an inferior tri&unal depends upon the e=istence of a fact to &e esta&lished &efore it# the determination of that fact &! the tri&unal cannot &e (uestioned in a collateral attac) upon its order 3ence# the CA erred in re'iewing under a collateral attac)# the determination of the adoption court that the parents of the adopted children had a&andoned them

(. Repub i! vs. )ernande% (Special Proceedings Adoption: Change of 2ame) Facts: ,he R,C granted the petition for adoption of De'in Earl Eartolome 5oran and simultaneousl! granted the pra!er therein for the change of the first name of said adoptee to Aaron "oseph# to complement the surname 5unson ! Andrade which he ac(uired conse(uent to his adoption Petitioner opposed the inclusion of the relief for change of name in the same petition for adoption o&4ecting to the 4oinder of the petition for adoption and the petitions for the change of name in a single proceeding# arguing that these petition should &e conducted and pursued as two separate proceedings Petitioner argues that a petition for adoption and a petition for change of name are two special proceedings which# in su&stance and purpose# are different from and are not related to each other# &eing respecti'el! go'erned &! distinct sets of law and rules Petitioner further contends that what the law allows is the change of the surname of the adoptee# as a matter of right# to conform with that of the adopter and as a natural conse(uence of the adoption thus granted 0f what is sought is the change of the registered gi'en or proper name# and since this would in'ol'e a su&stantial change of one%s legal name# a petition for change of name under Rule >F8 should accordingl! &e instituted# with the su&stanti'e and ad4ecti'e re(uisites therefor &eing conforma&l! satisfied Pri'ate respondents# on the contrar!# admittedl! filed the petition for adoption with a pra!er for change of name predicated upon Section <# Rule 9 which allows permissi'e 4oinder of causes of action in order to a'oid multiplicit! of suits and in line with the polic! of discouraging protracted and 'e=atious litigations 0t is argued that there is no prohi&ition in the Rules against the 4oinder of adoption and change of name &eing pleaded as two separate &ut related causes of action in a single petition 0ssue: 1$2 respondent 4udge erred in granting pra!er for the change of the gi'en or proper name if the adoptee in a petition for adoption 3eld: 2o Par (>)# Art >;: of the Famil! Code pro'ides one of the legal effect of adoption: (>) For ci'il purposes# the adopted shall &e deemed to &e a legitimate child of the adopters and &oth shall ac(uire the reciprocal rights and o&ligations arising from the

relationship of parent and child# including the right of the adopted to use the surname of the adoptersC ,he law allows the adoptee# as a matter of right and o&ligation# to &ear the surname of the adopter# upon issuance of the decree of adoption 0t is the change of the adoptee%s surname to follow that of the adopter which is the natural and necessar! conse(uence of a grant of adoption and must specificall! &e contained in the order of the court# in fact# e'en if not pra!ed for &! petitioner 3owe'er# the gi'en or proper name# also )nown as the first or Christian name# of the adoptee must remain as it was originall! registered in the ci'il register ,he creation of an adopti'e relationship does not confer upon the adopter a license to change the adoptee%s registered Christian or first name ,he automatic change thereof# premised solel! upon the adoption thus granted# is &e!ond the pur'iew of a decree of adoption 2either is it a mere incident in nor an ad4unct of an adoption proceeding# such that a pra!er therefor furti'el! inserted in a petition for adoption# as in this case# cannot properl! &e granted ,he official name of a person whose &irth is registered in the ci'il register is the name appearing therein 0f a change in one%s name is desired# this can onl! &e done &! filing and strictl! compl!ing with the su&stanti'e and procedural re(uirements for a special proceeding for change of name under Rule >F8 of the Rules of Court# wherein the sufficienc! of the reasons or grounds therefor can &e threshed out and accordingl! determined A petition for change of name &eing a proceeding in rem# strict compliance with all the re(uirements therefor is indispensa&le in order to 'est the court with 4urisdiction for its ad4udication 0t is an independent and discrete special proceeding# in and &! itself# go'erned &! its own set of rules Afortiori# it cannot &e granted &! means of an! other proceeding ,o consider it as a mere incident or an offshoot of another special proceeding would &e to denigrate its role and significance as the appropriate remed! a'aila&le under our remedial law s!stem