Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    Spec Pro - Lahum Vs Sibulo

    Uploaded by

    Negou Xian Te
    1. A couple adopted the wife's nephew and raised him as their own son, but he later refused to take their surname and continued using his birth surname. 2. In 1999, after a new adoption law took effect in 1998 prohibiting rescinding adoptions, the couple filed to revoke the 1972 adoption decree. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the controversy must be resolved under the 1998 law, as that was in effect when the revocation petition was filed. The 1998 law prohibited rescinding adoptions, so the petition could not be granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Spec Pro - Lahum Vs Sibulo

    Uploaded by

    Negou Xian Te
    78 views1 page
    1. A couple adopted the wife's nephew and raised him as their own son, but he later refused to take their surname and continued using his birth surname. 2. In 1999, after a new adoption law took effect in 1998 prohibiting rescinding adoptions, the couple filed to revoke the 1972 adoption decree. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the controversy must be resolved under the 1998 law, as that was in effect when the revocation petition was filed. The 1998 law prohibited rescinding adoptions, so the petition could not be granted.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Spec Pro - Lahum vs Sibulo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. A couple adopted the wife's nephew and raised him as their own son, but he later refused to take their surname and continued using his birth surname. 2. In 1999, after a new adoption law took effect in 1998 prohibiting rescinding adoptions, the couple filed to revoke the 1972 adoption decree. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the controversy must be resolved under the 1998 law, as that was in effect when the revocation petition was filed. The 1998 law prohibited rescinding adoptions, so the petition could not be granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    78 views1 page

    Spec Pro - Lahum Vs Sibulo

    Uploaded by

    Negou Xian Te
    1. A couple adopted the wife's nephew and raised him as their own son, but he later refused to take their surname and continued using his birth surname. 2. In 1999, after a new adoption law took effect in 1998 prohibiting rescinding adoptions, the couple filed to revoke the 1972 adoption decree. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the controversy must be resolved under the 1998 law, as that was in effect when the revocation petition was filed. The 1998 law prohibited rescinding adoptions, so the petition could not be granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    SKINNY LAHOM VS SIBULO Search

    CASES Posted by kaye lee on 7:49 PM

    Case Digests and Scratch G.R. No. 143989 July 14, 2003 QUESTIONS?
    Notes
    FACTS:
    A childless couple adopted the wife's nephew and brought him up as their own. In Name

    Home 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. Email ID
    About Lahom commenced a petition to rescind the decree of adoption, in which she
    averred, that, despite the 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. Prior to the institution of the case, in 1998, RA No. 8552 went into
    effect. The new statute deleted from the law the right of adopters to rescind a
    decree of adoption (Section 19 of Article VI).
    Send
    These turn of events revealing Jose's callous indifference, ingratitude and lack of
    care and concern prompted 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
    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 CATEGORIES
    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" (Section 19). Constitutional Law 1

    Criminal Law 1
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the subject adoption still be revoked or rescinded by an adopter Criminal Law Cases
    after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552, and if in the affirmative, whether or not the
    adopter’s action prescribed. Haiku Case Digest

    RULING: Persons and Family Relations


    Jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the
    Statutory Construction
    commencement of the action. The controversy should be resolved in the light of
    the law governing at the time the petition was filed. In this case, it was months Taxation
    after the effectivity of RA 8552 that Lahom filed an action to revoke the decree of
    adoption granted in 1972. By then the new law had already abrogated and
    repealed the right of the adopter under the Civil Code and the family Code to Activist Post
    rescind a decree of adoption. So the rescission of the adoption decree, having
    been initiated by Lahom after RA 8552 had come into force, could no longer be Audio Codals
    pursued.
    Law and Sexuality
    Besides, even before the passage of RA8552, an action to set aside the adoption is
    subject to the five year bar rule under Rule 100 of the Rules of Court and that the Music Playlist for Study
    adopter would lose the right to revoke the adoption decree after the lapse of that
    period. The exercise of the right within a prescriptive period is a condition that Phil Jurisprudence
    could not fulfill the requirements of a vested right entitled to protection. Rights are
    considered vested when the right to the enjoyment is a present interest, absolute,
    unconditional and perfect or fixed and irrefutable. The concept of a "vested right" About Skinny Cases
    is a consequence of the constitutional guarantee of due process that expresses a
    present fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice is protected against Never mind.
    arbitrary state action. While adoption has often been referred to in the context of View Complete Profile
    a "right", it is not naturally innate or fundamental but rather a right merely created
    by statute. It is more of a privilege that is governed by the state's determination on Life, liberty, and property do not exist
    what it may deem to be for the best interest and welfare of the child. Matters because men have made laws. On the
    relating to adoption, including the withdrawal of the right of the adopter to nullify contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty,
    the adoption decree, are subject to State regulation. Concomitantly, a right of and property existed beforehand that
    action given by a statute may be taken away at any time before it has been caused men to make laws in the first
    exercised. place. -Frederic Bastiat

    But an adopter, while barred from severing the legal ties of adoption, can always
    2013 Skinny Cases. Powered by
    for valid reasons cause the forfeiture of certain benefits otherwise accruing to an
    Blogger.
    undeserving child, like denying him his legitime, and by will and testament, may
    expressly exclude him from having a share in the disposable portion of his estate.
    Categories: Adoption, G.R. No. 143989, Persons and Family Relations, Philippine
    Civil Code

    Newer Post Older Post

    You might also like