SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

1. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES In all trust receipts transactions, both

vs. PEREZ obligations on the part of the trustee exist in
the alternative the return of the proceeds of
Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the sale or the return or recovery of the goods,
the land of another and the improvements or whether raw, or processed. When both parties
repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of enter into an agreement knowing that the
the land, subject to the provision of the return of the goods subject of the trust receipts
following articles. is not possible even without any fault on the
part of the trustee, it is not a trust receipt
FACTS: Petitioner Land Bank of the transaction penalized under Section 13 of P.D.
Philippines (LBP) is a government financial 115; the only obligation actually agreed upon
institution and the official depository of the by the parties would be the return of the
Philippines. Respondents were officers of proceeds of the sale transaction. This
Asian Construction and Development transaction becomes a mere loan, where the
Corporation (ACDC), a corporation engaged borrower is obligated to pay the bank the
in the construction business. On several amount spent for the purchase of the goods.
occasions, respondents executed in favour of
Landbank trust receipts to secure the purchase Article 1371 of the Civil Code provides that in
of construction materials that they will need in order to judge the intention of the contracting
their construction projects. When the trust parties, their contemporaneous and
receipts matured, ACDC failed to return to subsequent acts shall be principally
LBP the proceeds of the construction projects considered. Under this provision, we can
or the construction materials subject of the examine the contemporaneous actions of the
trust receipts. After several demands went parties rather than rely purely on the trust
unheeded, LBP filed a complaint for Estafa or receipts that they signed in order to
violation of Art. 315, par 1(b) of the RPC, in understand the transaction through their
relation to PD 115, against the respondent intent.
officers of ACDC.
We note in this regard that at the onset of
ISSUE: WON the disputed transaction is a these transactions, LBP knew that ACDC was
trust receipt or a loan? in the construction business and that the
materials that it sought to buy under the
RULING: TRUST RECEIPT letters of credit were to be used for the
following projects: the Metro Rail Transit
There are two (2) obligations in a trust receipt Project and the Clark Centennial Exposition
transaction : (1) covered by the provision that Project. LBP had in fact authorized the
refers to money under the obligation to deliver delivery of the materials on the construction
it (entregarla) to the owner of the merchandise sites for these projects, as seen in the letters of
sold. (2) covered by the provision referring to credit it attached to its complaint. Clearly, they
merchandise received under the obligation to were aware of the fact that there was no way
return it (devolvera) to the owner. they could recover the buildings or
constructions for which the materials, its
Thus, under the Trust Receipts Law, intent to demand letter dated May 4, 1999 sought the
defraud is presumed when (1) the entrustee payment of the balance but failed to ask, as an
fails to turn over the proceeds of the sale of alternative, for the return of the construction
goods covered by the trust receipt to the materials or the buildings where these
entruster, or (2) when the entrustee fails to materials had been used.
return the goods under trust, if they are not
disposed of in accordance with the terms of The fact that LBP had knowingly authorized
the trust receipts. the delivery of construction materials to a
construction site of two government projects,

32
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

as well as unspecified construction materials. Regina Gregorio (Regina) was instituted by

As a government financial institution, LBP Atty. Jose Castro. Atty. Castro alleged that Jed
should have been aware that the materials and Regina were his illegitimate children with
were to be used for the construction of an Lilibeth Gregorio (Rosario’s housekeeper).
immovable property, the ownership of After a Home Study Report conducted by the
whatever was constructed with those Social Welfare Officer of the TC, the petition
materials would presumably belong to the was granted.
owner of the land, under Article 445 of the
Civil Code. A disbarment complaint was filed against
Atty. Castro by Rosario. She alleged that Jose
Even if we consider the vague possibility that had been remiss in providing support to his
the materials, consisting of cement, bolts and daughter Joanne for the past 36 year; that she
reinforcing steel bars, would be used for the single-handedly raised and provided financial
construction of a movable property, the support to Joanne while Jose had been
ownership of these properties would still showering gifts to his driver and allege lover,
pertain to the government and not remain Larry, and even went to the extent of adopting
with the bank as they would be classified as Larry’s two children, Jed and Regina, without
property of the public domain, as defined by her and Joanne knowledge and consent. Atty.
the Civil Code. Castro denied the allegation that he had
remiss his fatherly duties to Joanne. He
In contrast with the present situation, it is alleged that he always offered help but it was
fundamental in a trust receipt transaction that often declined. He also alleged that Jed and
the person who advanced payment for the Regina were his illegitimate children that’s
merchandise becomes the absolute owner of why he adopted them. Later on Atty. Castro
said merchandise and continues as owner died.
until he or she is paid in full, or if the goods
had already been sold, the proceeds should be Rosario and Joanne filed a petition for
turned over to him or her. annulment of judgment seeking to annul the
decision of the TC approving Jed and Regina’s
2. CASTRO vs GREGORIO adoption.

FACTS: This is a petition for review on Petitioner allege that Rosario’s consent was
Certiorari assailing the decision of the CA not obtained and the document purporting as
which denied the petition for annulment of Rosario’s affidavit of consent was fraudulent.
judgment filed by petitioners. The petition P also allege that Jed and Regina’s birth
before the appellate court sought to annul the certificates shows disparity. One set shows
judgment of the trial court that granted Rs’ that the father to is Jose, while another set of
decree of adoption. NSO certificates shows the father to be Larry.
P further alleged that Jed and Regina are not
Atty. Castro was allegedly married to Rosario actually Jose’s illegitimate children but the
Castro (Petitioner). Unfortunately, they legitimate children of Lilibeth and Larry who
separated later on due to their were married at the time of their birth. CA
incompatibilities and Jose’s alleged denied the petition.
homosexual tendencies. Their marriage bore
two daughters: Rose Marie, who succumbed CA held that while no notice was given by the
to death after nine days from birth due to TC to Rosario and Joanne of the adoption, it
congenital heart disease, and Joanne Benedicta ruled that there is “no explicit provision in the
Charissima Castro (Petitioner). rules that spouses and legitimate child of the
adopter. . . should be personally notified of the
On August 2000, A petition for adoption of hearing.”
Jose Maria Jed Gregorio (Jed) and Ana Maria

33
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

CA also ruled that the alleged fraudulent provides for several exceptions to the general
information contained in the different sets of rule, as in a situation where a spouse seeks to
birth certificates required the determination of adopt his or her own children born out of
the identities of the persons stated therein and wedlock. In this instance, joint adoption is not
was, therefore, beyond the scope of the action necessary. But, the spouse seeking to adopt
for annulment of judgment. The alleged fraud must first obtain the consent of his or her
could not be classified as extrinsic fraud, spouse.
which is required in an action for annulment
of judgment. In the absence of any decree of legal
separation or annulment, Jose and Rosario
ISSUES: remained legally married despite their de facto
separation. For Jose to be eligible to adopt Jed
1. Whether extrinsic fraud exist in the and Regina, Rosario must first signify her
instant case? consent to the adoption. Since her consent was
2. Whether consent of the spouse and not obtained, Jose was ineligible to adopt.
legitimate children 10 years or over of
the adopter is required? The law also requires the written consent of
the adopter’s children if they are 10 years old
RULING: The grant of adoption over R or older (ART. III, Sec. 9, RA 8552).
should be annulled as the trial court did not
validly acquire jurisdiction over the For the adoption to be valid, petitioners’
proceedings, and the favorable decision was consent was required by Republic Act No.
obtained through extrinsic fraud. 8552. Personal service of summons should
have been effected on the spouse and all
When fraud is employed by a party precisely legitimate children to ensure that their
to prevent the participation of any other substantive rights are protected. It is not
interested party, as in this case, then the fraud enough to rely on constructive notice as in this
is extrinsic, regardless of whether the fraud case. Surreptitious use of procedural
was committed through the use of forged technicalities cannot be privileged over
documents or perjured testimony during the substantive statutory rights.
trial.
Since the trial court failed to personally serve
Jose’s actions prevented Rosario and Joanne notice on Rosario and Joanne of the
from having a reasonable opportunity to proceedings, it never validly acquired
contest the adoption. Had Rosario and Joanne jurisdiction.
been allowed to participate, the trial court
would have hesitated to grant Jose’s petition 3. CANG vs CA
since he failed to fulfill the necessary
requirements under the law. There can be no FACTS: Petitioner Herbert and his wife, Anna
other conclusion than that because of Jose’s Marie Clavano, begot three children. The
acts, the trial court granted the decree of family was living harmoniously in Cebu until
adoption under fraudulent circumstances. the Anna Marie learned of an alleged extra
marital affair of her husband with one Wilma
RA 8552 requires that the adoption by the Soco, a family friend. Anna Marie filed for a
father of a child born out of wedlock obtain legal separation case against Herbert. The
not only the consent of his wife but also the court granted petition and ordered Herbert to
consent of his legitimate children. (Art. III, Sec. give monthly financial support to the children.
7, RA 8552) Thereafter, Herbert left for the USA. He filed a
divorce against Anna Marie. The US court
As a rule, the husband and wife must file a awarded the custody of the children to Anna
joint petition for adoption. The law, however, Marie and ordered Herbert to send monthly

34
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

support. He then remarried thereby acquiring (1) The person to be adopted, if ten
US citizenship. Not long after, he divorced years of age or over;
anew. (2) The parents by nature of the
child, the legal guardian, or the
In 1987, respondents Clavano, Anna Marie’s proper government
brother and sister-in-law, filed for an adoption instrumentality;
case in Cebu. It annexed an affidavit of (3) The legitimate and adopted
consent of the eldest child, Keith (14 y/o), and children, ten years of age or
of the mother Anna Marie. According to the over, of the adopting parent or
latter, the father had already abandoned the parents;
kids and since she will be leaving for the US to (4) The illegitimate children, ten
work, the care and custody of the children will years of age or over, of the
be best left to the Clavanos. Also, the couple adopting parents, if living with
has helped her in giving the children’s needs said parent and the latters
all these years. Besides, the father reneged on spouse, if any; and
his obligation to send money as ordered by the (5) The spouse, if any, of the person
two courts above. adopting or to be adopted.
(Underscoring supplied)
Upon learning of the petition for adoption,
Based on the foregoing, it is thus evident that
petitioner immediately returned to the
notwithstanding the amendments to the law,
Philippines and filed an opposition thereto,
the written consent of the natural parent to the
alleging that, although private respondents
adoption has remained a requisite for its
Ronald and Maria Clara Clavano were
validity. Notably, such requirement is also
financially capable of supporting the children
embodied in Rule 99 of the Rules of Court as
while his finances were too meager compared
follows:
to theirs, he could not in conscience, allow
anybody to strip him of his parental authority
SEC. 3. Consent to adoption. There shall be filed
over his beloved children.
with the petition a written consent to the
adoption signed by the child, if fourteen years
Pending the adoption case, the adoption court
of age or over and not incompetent, and by the
awarded custody of the children to Herbert as
childs spouse, if any, and by each of its known
their mother already left thereby relinquishing
living parents who is not insane or hopelessly
custody over the children.
intemperate or has not abandoned the child, or
if there are no such parents by the general
The petition for adoption was granted. The
guardian or guardian ad litem of the child, or if
trial court ratiocinated that the father
the child is in the custody of an orphan
abandoned the children and thus his consent
asylum, childrens home, or benevolent society
to the adoption was not anymore necessary.
or person, by the proper officer or officers of
such asylum, home, or society, or by such
On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto. Thus, this
persons; but if the child is illegitimate and has
present controversy at bench.
not been recognized, the consent of its father
to the adoption shall not be required.
ISSUE: Is the consent of the father necessary
(Underscoring supplied)
in the adoption of the three children?
As clearly inferred from the foregoing
RULING: Yes. The consent is necessary. provisions of law, the written consent of the
Reversed and set aside. natural parent is indispensable for the validity
of the decree of adoption. Nevertheless, the
Art. 188 (NCC). The written consent of the requirement of written consent can be
following to the adoption shall be necessary: dispensed with if the parent has abandoned
the child or that such parent is insane or

35
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

hopelessly intemperate. The court may acquire claiming such relationship. This Respondent
jurisdiction over the case even without the Pilapil failed to do. Moreover, the evidence
written consent of the parents or one of the presented by petitioner shows that the alleged
parents provided that the petition for adoption adoption is a sham.
alleges facts sufficient to warrant exemption
from compliance therewith. This is in 5. REPUBLIC vs CA
consonance with the liberality with which this
Court treats the procedural aspect of adoption. FACTS: The petition below was filed on
September 2, 1988 by private respondents
In this case, Herbert substantially proved that spouses Jaime B. Caranto and Zenaida P.
he did not abandon his children. There were Caranto for the adoption of Midael C. Mazon,
numerous exchanges of letters between them then fifteen years old, who had been living
over the years, he sent things and personal with private respondent Jaime B. Caranto
stuff to them, and in turn, the children since he was seven years old. When private
expressed their love for their father. He also respondents were married on January 19,
provided receipts for bank deposits made in 1986, the minor Midael C. Mazon stayed with
favor of the children. Although Herbert did them under their care and custody. Private
not fully comply with the orders of the legal respondents prayed that judgement be
separation court and divorce court to give rendered:
financial assistance, it is not enough to strip
him of parental authority. The policy of the a) Declaring the child Michael C.
law is not to take the children away from their Mazon the child of petitioners for all
parents but for the best interest of the child. intents and purposes;
Since the father has shown that he did not b) Dissolving the authority vested in
abandon his children and they retain the natural parents of the child; and
emotional attachments to each other, his c) That the surname of the child be
authority over his biological children should legally changed to that of the
not be disturbed. petitioners and that the first name
which was mistakenly registered as
4. VDA DE JACOB vs CA MIDAEL be corrected to MICHAEL.

FACTS: Plaintiff-appellant [petitioner herein] The RTC set the case for hearing on September
claimed to be the surviving spouse of 21, 1988, giving notice thereof by publication
deceased Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob and was in a newspaper of general circulation in the
appointed Special Administratix for the Province of Cavite and by service of the order
various estates of the deceased by virtue of upon the Department of Social Welfare and
a reconstructed Marriage Contract between Development and the Office of the Solicitor
herself and the deceased. General.
Defendant-appellee on the other hand,
claimed to be the legally-adopted son of The Solicitor General opposed the petition
Alfredo. In support of his claim, he presented insofar as it sought the correction of the name
an Order dated 18 July 1961 issued by then of the child from Midael to Michael. He
Presiding Judge Jose L. Moya, CFI, Camarines argued that although the correction sought
Sur, granting the petition for adoption filed by concerned only a clerical and innocuous error,
deceased Alfredo in favor of Pedro Pilapil. it could not be granted because the petition
was basically for adoption, not the correction
ISSUE: WON Thea decree of adoption is of an entry in the civil registry under Rule 108
sufficient to admit the same? of the Rules of Court.

RULING: No. The burden of proof in

establishing adoption is upon the person

36
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

ISSUES: 6. REYES vs MAURICIO

1. WON publication in adoption and FACTS: Eugenio Reyes (Eugenio) was the
change of name should be made to registered owner of a parcel of land located at
give jurisdiction to the court? Turo, Bocaue, Bulacan). Said title came from
2. WON the Civil Registrar should be and cancelled TCT No. T-62290 registered in
impleaded in the adoption case? the name of Eufracia and Susana Reyes,
siblings of Eugenio. The subject property was
RULING: The local civil registrar is thus adjudicated to Eugenio by virtue of an
required to be made a party to the proceeding. extrajudicial settlement among the heirs
He is an indispensable party, without whom following the death of his parents.
no final determination of the case can be had.
As he was not impleaded in this case much The controversy stemmed from a complaint
less given notice of the proceeding, the filed before the DARAB of Malolos, Bulacan
decision of the trial court, insofar as it granted by respondents Librada F. Mauricio (Librada),
the prayer for the correction of entry, is void. now deceased, and her alleged daughter
The absence of-an indispensable party in a Leonida F. Mauricio (Leonida) for annulment
case renders ineffectual all the proceedings of contract denominated as Kasunduan and
subsequent to the filing of the complaint between Librada and Eugenio as parties.
including the judgment. Nor was notice of the Respondents also prayed for maintenance of
petition for correction of entry published as their peaceful possession with damages.
required by Rule 108, 4 which reads: 4. Notice
and publication. - Upon filing of the petition, Respondents alleged that they are the legal
the court shall, by an order, fix the time and heirs of the late Godofredo Mauricio
place for the hearing of the same, and cause (Godofredo), who was the lawful and
reasonable notice thereof to be given to the registered tenant of Eugenio through his
persons named in the petition. The court shall predecessors-in-interest to the subject land;
also cause the order to be published once a that , Godofredo had been working on the
week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a subject land and introduced improvements
newspaper of general circulation in the consisting of fruit-bearing trees, seasonal
province. While there was notice given by crops, a residential house and other
publication in this case, it was notice of the permanent improvements; that through fraud,
petition for adoption made in compliance with deceit, strategy and other unlawful means,
Rule 99, 4. In that notice only the prayer for Eugenio caused the preparation of a document
adoption of the minor was stated. Nothing denominated as Kasunduan to eject
was, mentioned that in addition the correction respondents from the subject property, and
of his name in the civil registry was also being had the same notarized by Notary Public Ma.
sought. The local civil registrar -was thus Sarah G. Nicolas in Pasig, Metro Manila; that
deprived of notice and, consequently, of the Librada never appeared before the Notary
opportunity to be heard. The necessary Public; that Librada was illiterate and the
consequence of the failure to implead the civil contents of the Kasunduan were not read nor
registrar as an indispensable party and to give explained to her; that Eugenio took undue
notice by publication of the petition for advantage of the weakness, age, illiteracy,
correction of entry was to render the ignorance, indigence and other handicaps of
proceeding of the trial court, so far as the Librada in the execution of the Kasunduan
correction of entry was concerned, null and rendering it void for lack of consent; and that
void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party Eugenio had been employing all illegal means
and as to the subject matter. to eject respondents from the subject property.
Respondents prayed for the declaration of
nullity of the Kasunduan and for an order for
Eugenio to maintain and place them in

37
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

peaceful possession and cultivation of the HELD: No.

subject property. Respondents likewise
demanded payment of damages. The legitimacy of the child cannot be contested
by way of defense or as a collateral issue in
Eugenio averred that no tenancy relationship another action for a different purpose. The
existed between him and respondents. He necessity of an independent action directly
clarified that Godofredo’s occupation of the impugning the legitimacy is more clearly
subject premises was based on the former’s expressed in the Mexican code (article 335)
mere tolerance and accommodation. Eugenio which provides: "The contest of the legitimacy
denied signing a tenancy agreement, nor of a child by the husband or his heirs must be
authorizing any person to sign such an made by proper complaint before the
agreement. He maintained that Librada, competent court; any contest made in any
accompanied by a relative, voluntarily affixed other way is void." This principle applies
her signature to the Kasunduan and that she under our Family Code. Articles 170 and 171
was fully aware of the contents of the of the code confirm this view, because they
document. refer to "the action to impugn the legitimacy."
This action can be brought only by the
Provincial Adjudicator- concluded that husband or his heirs and within the periods
Godofredo was the tenant of Eugenio, and fixed in the present articles.
Librada, being the surviving spouse, should be
maintained in peaceful possession of the In Braza v. City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan
subject land. City, Negros Occidental, the Court stated that
legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only
DARAB - Mauricio’s are former tenants of in a direct action seasonably filed by the
Spouses Reyes. It found that when Spouses proper party, and not through collateral
Reyes died, siblings Eufracia, Susana and attack.
Eugenio, among others inherited the subject
property. Under the law, they were The same rule is applied to adoption such that
subrogated to the rights and substituted to the it cannot also be made subject to a collateral
"obligations" of their late parents as the attack. In Reyes v. Sotero,this Court reiterated
agricultural lessors over the farmholding that adoption cannot be assailed collaterally in
tenanted by respondents a proceeding for the settlement of a decedent’s
estate. Furthermore, in Austria v. Reyes, the
CA - It sustained the factual findings of the Court declared that the legality of the
DARAB with respect to the tenancy relation adoption by the testatrix can be assailed only
between Godofredo and Spouses Reyes and in a separate action brought for that purpose
the nullity of the Kasunduan. and cannot be subject to collateral attack.

As an incidental issue, Leonida’s legal 7. IN THE MATTER OF STEPHANIE

standing as a party was also assailed by NATHY ASTORGA-GARCIA
Eugenio.1avvphi1 Eugenio submitted that the
complaint was rendered moot with the death FACTS: Honorato Catindig filed a petition to
of Librada, Godofredo’s sole compulsory heir. adopt his minor illegitimate child Stephanie
Eugenio contended that Leonida is a mere Nathy Astorga Garcia. He prayed that the
ward of Godofredo and Librada, thus, not a child's middle name Astorga be changed to
legal heir. Garcia, her mother's surname, and that her
surname Garcia be changed to Catindig, his
ISSUE: Whether or not Eugenio cannot surname.
collaterally attack the status of Leonida in the
instant petition Before the adoption, the child had been using
her natural mother's middle name and

38
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

surname. The petitioner wanted to change the is in favour of the child and the effects of
child's name such that the child would keep adoption is that the adopted is deemed to be a
her natural mother's surname as her middle legitimate child of the adopter for all intents
name and the petitioner's surname as her and purposes under the law. Being a
surname. The trial court denied the legitimate child by virtue of her adoption by
petitioner's request as there was no law that the petitioner, it follows that the child is
allowed an adopted child to use the surname entitled to all the rights provided by law to a
of the child's biological mother as the child's legitimate child without discrimination of any
middle name. kind, including the right to bear the surname
of her father and her mother.
The petitioner appealed the decision arguing
that while there is no law providing that an Adoption law should be interpreted and
adopted child can use the natural mother's construed liberally to carry out the beneficial
surname as a middle name, there is no law purposes of adoption with the interests and
prohibiting it either. It is also customary for welfare of the adopted child being the primary
every Filipino to have the surname of the and paramount consideration.
mother as a middle name and the use in this
instance is customary, not opposed by any 8. IN RE: ADOPTION OF MICHELLE
interested party or prohibited by any laws. AND MICHAEL LIM

The petitioner argued that adoption is for the FACTS: Monina Limmarried Primo Lim
benefit and best interest of the adopted child, (Lim) on June 1974.
hence the child's right to bear a proper name
should not be violated. In addition, permitting They were childless. Minor children, whose
the child to use her mother's surname as her parents were unknown, were entrusted to
middle name avoids the stigma of her them by a certain Lucia Ayuban.
illegitimacy.
Petitioner and Lim registered the children to
ISSUE: Whether or not an illegitimate child make it appear that they were the children’s
may use the surname of her mother as her parents. The children2 were named Michelle
middle name when she is subsequently P. Lim (Michelle) and Michael Jude P. Lim
adopted by her natural father. (Michael).
The spouses reared and cared for the children
RULING: The Court held that there is no law as if they were their own but on November
expressly prohibiting the child to use the 1998, Lim died.
surname of her natural mother as her middle
name and what is not prohibited by law, is On 27 December 2000, petitioner married
allowed. It is customary for every Filipino to Angel Olario (Olario), an American citizen.
have a middle name, which is ordinarily the
surname of the mother. While not set out in Thereafter, petitioner decided to adopt the
law this custom has been recognized during children by availing of the amnesty given
the lawmaking process. In fact, the Family under Republic Act No. 85526 (RA 8552) to
Law Committees had agreed that the initial or those individuals who simulated the birth of a
surname of the mother should immediately child.
precede the surname of the father.
At the time of the filing of the petitions for
The Court also said that it is necessary to adoption, Michelle was 25 years old and
preserve and maintain the child’s relationship already married, while Michael was 18 years
with her natural mother because under the and seven months old.
law, she remains an intestate heir of the
mother. The underlying intent of adoption law

39
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

RTC RULING: Trial court dismissed the parental authority over the child which is the
petitions. ideal situation.

The trial court ruled that since petitioner had The law is clear. There is no room for
remarried, petitioner should have filed the ambiguity. Petitioner, having remarried at the
petition jointly with her new husband. The time the petitions for adoption were filed,
trial court ruled that joint adoption by the must jointly adopt.
husband and the wife is mandatory citing
Section 7(c), Article III of RA 8552 and Article Since the petitions for adoption were filed
185 of the Family Code. only by petitioner herself, without joining her
husband, Olario, the trial court was correct in
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner, who has denying the petitions for adoption on this
remarried, can singly adopt. ground.

RULING: NO. Neither does petitioner fall under any of the

three exceptions enumerated in Section 7.
It is undisputed that, at the time the petitions First, the children to be adopted are not the
for adoption were filed, petitioner had already legitimate children of petitioner or of her
remarried. She filed the petitions by herself, husband Olario. Second, the children are not
without being joined by her husband Olario. the illegitimate children of petitioner. And
We have no other recourse but to affirm the third, petitioner and Olario are not legally
trial court’s decision denying the petitions for separated from each other.
adoption.
The fact that Olario gave his consent to the
Sec.7, Art III of RA 8552 reads: adoption as shown in his Affidavit of Consent
does not suffice. There are certain
“Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except requirements that Olario must comply being
in the following cases: an American citizen.

(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the Regrettably, the Court is not in a position to
legitimate son/daughter of the other; or affirm the trial court’s decision favoring
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt adoption in the case at bar, for the law is clear
his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: and it cannot be modified without violating
Provided, however, That the other the proscription against judicial legislation.
spouse has signified his/her consent
thereto; or 9. NERY vs SAMPANA

(iii) if the spouses are legally FACTS: Melody Nery (Nery) engage in the
separated from each other. services of Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana
(Sampana) for the annulment of her marriage
In case husband and wife jointly and for her adoption by an alien adopter. The
adopt, or one spouse adopts the petition for annulment was granted. As for the
illegitimate son/daughter of the other, adoption, Sampana asked Nery if she had an
joint parental authority shall be aunt, whom they could represent as the wife
exercised by the spouses.” of her alien adopter. Thereafter, Nery paid
Sampana in installment and did not ask for
The use of the word "shall" in the above- receipts since she trusted Sampana.
quoted provision means that joint adoption by
the husband and the wife is mandatory. This is Nery alleged that Sampana sent a text message
in consonance with the concept of joint informing her that he already filed the petition
for adoption and it was already published.

40
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

Furthermore, Samapana informed Nery that adoption and fell short of his duty of due
they needed to rehearse before the hearing. diligence and candor to his client. Sampana’s
When Nery asked why she did not receive proffered excuse of waiting for the
notices from the court, Sampana claimed that certification before filing the petition for
her presence was no longer necessary because adoption is disingenuous and flimsy.
the hearing was only jurisdictional. Nery
inquired about the status of the petition for In his position paper, he suggested to Nery
adoption and discovered that there was no that if the alien adopter would be married to
such petition filed in the court. her close relative, the intended adoption could
be possible. Under the Domestic Adoption Act
Sampana argued that Nery’s allegations were provision, which Sampana suggested, the
self-serving and unsubstantiated. However, he alien adopter can jointly adopt a relative
admitted receiving "one package fee" from within the fourth degree of consanguinity or
Nery for both cases of annulment of marriage affinity of his/her Filipino spouse, and the
and adoption. He alleged that Nery insisted certification of the alien’s qualification to
on being adopted despite the factors that adopt is waived.
affects the adoption. Thus, he suggested that
"if the [alien] adopter would be married to a Clearly, there was no proof that the adoption
close relative of, the adoption could be may be granted for under the Rules on
possible." he, required Nery to submit the Adoption A.M no. 2-06-02 SC under Sec 5
documents, including the marriage contracts (Domestic Adoption) and Sec 29 (Inter-country
and the certification of the alien’s qualification Adoption), petitioner does not in any of those
to adopt from the Japanese Embassy. Nery that are enumerated by the law. The law
furnished the blurred marriage contract, but provides the following:
not the certification. He alleged that he
prepared the petition for adoption but did not SEC. 29. Who may be adopted. –
file it because he was still waiting for the Only a child legally available for
certification. domestic adoption may be the subject
of Inter-country adoption.
Sampana denied that he misled Nery as to the SEC. 5. Who may be adopted. – The
filing of the petition for adoption. Sampana following may be adopted: (1) Any
claimed that Nery could have mistaken the person below eighteen (18) years of
proceeding for the annulment case with the age who has been voluntarily
petition for adoption, and that the annulment committed to the Department under
case could have overshadowed the adoption Articles 154, 155 and 156 of P.D. No.
case. In any case, Sampana committed to 603 or judicially declared available for
refund the amount Nery paid him, after adoption; (2) The legitimate child of
deducting his legal services and actual one spouse, by the other spouse; (3)
expenses. An illegitimate child, by a qualified
adopter to raise the status of the
IBP found Sampana guilty of malpractice for former to that of legitimacy; (4) A
making Nery believed that he filed the petition person of legal age regardless of civil
for adoption and for failing to file the petition status, if, prior to the adoption, said
despite receiving his legal fees. person has been consistently
considered and treated by the
ISSUE: Whether or not Nery can be legally adopters as their own child since
adopted. minority; (5) A child whose adoption
has been previously rescinded; (6) A
RULING: NO. In the present case, Sampana child whose biological or adoptive
admitted that despite receiving this fee, he parents have died: Provided, That no
unjustifiably failed to file the petition for proceedings shall be initiated within

41
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

six (6) months from the time of death to death after nine days from birth due to
of said parents. (7) A child not congenital heart disease, and Joanne Benedicta
otherwise disqualified by law or these Charissima Castro (Petitioner).
rules. (DOMESTIC ADOPTION)
On August 2000, a petition for adoption of
Likewise as stated in Sec 4 of the same Jose Maria Jed Gregorio (Jed) and Ana Maria
rule, it states that: Regina Gregorio (Regina) was instituted by
Atty. Jose Castro. Atty. Castro alleged that Jed
SEC. 4. Who may adopt. – The and Regina were his illegitimate children with
following may adopt: (2) Any alien Lilibeth Gregorio (Rosario’s housekeeper).
possessing the same qualifications as After a Home Study Report conducted by the
above-stated for Filipino nationals: Social Welfare Officer of the TC, the petition
Provided, That his country has was granted.
diplomatic RELATIONS with the
Republic of the Philippines, that he Rosario and Joanne filed a petition for
has been living in the Philippines for annulment of judgment seeking to annul the
at least three (3) continuous years decision of the TC approving Jed and Regina’s
prior to the filing of the petition for adoption.
adoption and maintains such
residence until the adoption decree is Petitioner allege that Rosario’s consent was
entered, that he has been certified by not obtained and the document purporting as
his diplomatic or consular office or Rosario’s affidavit of consent was fraudulent.
any appropriate government agency P also allege that Jed and Regina’s birth
to have the legal capacity to adopt in certificates shows disparity. One set shows
his country, and that his government that the father to is Jose, while another set of
allows the adoptee to enter his NSO certificates shows the father to be Larry.
country as his adopted child. P further alleged that Jed and Regina are not
Provided, further, That the actually Jose’s illegitimate children but the
requirements on residency and legitimate children of Lilibeth and Larry who
certification of the alien’s qualification were married at the time of their birth. CA
to adopt in his country may be waived denied the petition.
for the following: Xxx xxx xx (iii) one
who is married to a Filipino citizen CA held that while no notice was given by the
and seeks to adopt jointly with his TC to Rosario and Joanne of the adoption, it
spouse a relative within the fourth ruled that there is “no explicit provision in the
(4th) degree of consanguinity or rules that spouses and legitimate child of the
affinity of the Filipino spouse. adopter should be personally notified of the
hearing.
Since there was no valid proof or
evidence to justify the adoption CA also ruled that the alleged fraudulent
proceedings, the petition for adoption information contained in the different sets of
should be dismissed. birth certificates required the determination of
the identities of the persons stated therein and
10. CASTRO vs GREGORIO was, therefore, beyond the scope of the action
for annulment of judgment. The alleged fraud
FACTS: Atty. Castro was allegedly married to could not be classified as extrinsic fraud,
Rosario Castro (Petitioner). Unfortunately, which is required in an action for annulment
they separated later on due to their of judgment.
incompatibilities and Jose’s alleged
homosexual tendencies. Their marriage bore
two daughters: Rose Marie, who succumbed

42
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

ISSUES: adoption is not necessary. But, the

spouse seeking to adopt must first
1. Whether or not the adoption is valid. obtain the consent of his or her
2. Whether consent of the spouse and spouse.
legitimate children 10 years or over of In the absence of any decree of legal
the adopter is required? separation or annulment, Jose and
Rosario remained legally married
RULING: despite their de facto separation. For
Jose to be eligible to adopt Jed and
1. The grant of adoption over R should Regina, Rosario must first signify her
be annulled as the trial court did not consent to the adoption. Since her
validly acquire jurisdiction over the consent was not obtained, Jose was
proceedings, and the favorable ineligible to adopt.
decision was obtained through
extrinsic fraud. The law also requires the written
consent of the adopter’s children if
When fraud is employed by a party they are 10 years old or older (ART.III,
precisely to prevent the participation Sec.9, RA 8552).
of any other interested party, as in this
case, then the fraud is extrinsic, For the adoption to be valid,
regardless of whether the fraud was petitioners’ consent was required by
committed through the use of forged Republic Act No. 8552. Personal
documents or perjured testimony service of summons should have been
during the trial. effected on the spouse and all
Jose’s actions prevented Rosario and legitimate children to ensure that their
Joanne from having a reasonable substantive rights are protected. It is
opportunity to contest the adoption. not enough to rely on constructive
Had Rosario and Joanne been allowed notice as in this case. Surreptitious use
to participate, the trial court would of procedural technicalities cannot be
have hesitated to grant Jose’s petition privileged over substantive statutory
since he failed to fulfill the necessary rights.
requirements under the law. There can
be no other conclusion than that Since the trial court failed to
because of Jose’s acts, the trial court personally serve notice on Rosario and
granted the decree of adoption under Joanne of the proceedings, it never
fraudulent circumstances. validly acquired jurisdiction.

2. RA 8552 requires that the adoption by 11. BARTOLOME vs SSS

the father of a child born out of
wedlock obtain not only the consent of NATURE OF THE CASE:
his wife but also the consent of his
legitimate children.(Art.III, Sec.7, RA This Appeal, filed under Rule 43 of the Rules
8552) of Court, seeks to annul the March 17, 2010
Decisionof the Employees Compensation
As a rule, the husband and wife must Commission (ECC) in ECC Case No. SL-18483-
file a joint petition for adoption. The 0218-10, entitled Bernardina P. Bartolome v.
law, however, provides for several Social Security System (SSS) [Scanmar
exceptions to the general rule, as in a Maritime Services, Inc.}, declaring that
situation where a spouse seeks to petitioner is not a beneficiary of the deceased
adopt his or her own children born employee under Presidential Decree No. (PD)
out of wedlock. In this instance, joint

43
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the a personal relationship and that there are no
Philippines, as amended by PD 626. collateral relatives by virtue of adoption, who
was then left to care for the minor adopted
FACTS: John Colcolis a legally adopted child child if the adopter passed away?
of Cornelio Colcol( Great Grandfather ).
The Court also applied by analogy, insofar as
Cornelio died when John was only Four (4) the restoration of custody is concerned, the
years of age. provisions of law on rescission of adoption
wherein if said petition is granted, the parental
When John was already independent, he was authority of the adoptee’s biological parents
employed as an electrician (Seaman) of shall be restored if the adoptee is still a minor
Scanmar Maritime Services, Inc. He was or incapacitated.
enrolled under the government’s Employees’
Compensation Program (ECP). He died due to The manner herein of terminating the
an accident while on board the vessel Maersk adopter’s parental authority, unlike the
Danville while it was in Brazil. John was, at grounds for rescission, justifies the retention of
the time of his death, childless and unmarried( vested rights and obligations between the
Single ). Thus, petitioner Bernardina P. adopter and the adoptee, while the consequent
Bartolome, John’s biological mother and, restoration of parental authority in favor of the
allegedly, sole remaining beneficiary, filed a biological parents, simultaneously, ensures
claim for death benefits. that the adoptee, who is still a minor, is not left
to fend for himself at such a tender age.
SSS denied the claim on the ground
that Bernardina was no longer considered as From the foregoing, it is apparent that the
the parent of John since the latter was legally biological parents retain their rights of
adopted by Cornelio Colcol. As such, it is succession to the estate of their child who was
Cornelio who qualifies as John’s primary the subject of adoption. While the benefits
beneficiary, not petitioner. arising from the death of an SSS covered
employee do not form part of the estate of the
ISSUES: adopted child, the pertinent provision on legal
or intestate succession at least reveals the
1. Whether or not the death of the policy on the rights of the biological parents
adopter during the adoptee’s minority and those by adoption vis-à-vis the right to
results to the restoration of the receive benefits from the adopted. In the same
parental authority to the biological way that certain rights still attach by virtue of
parents of the latter. the blood relation, so too should certain
2. Whether or not Bernardina is obligations, which, the Court ruled, include
considered as a legal beneficiary of the exercise of parental authority, in the event
John. of the untimely passing of their minor
offspring’s adoptive parent.
RULING:
SECOND ISSUE: Yes.
FIRST ISSUE: Yes.
The Court held that Cornelio’s adoption of
The Court ruled that John’s minority at the John, without more, does not deprive
time of his adopter’s death is a significant petitioner of the right to receive the benefits
factor in the case at bar. Under such stemming from John’s death as a dependent
circumstance, parental authority should be parent, given Cornelio’s untimely demise
deemed to have reverted in favor of the during John’s minority. Since the parent by
biological parents. Otherwise, taking into adoption already died, then the death benefits
account our consistent ruling that adoption is under the Employees’ Compensation Program

44
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (TRUSTEES / ADOPTION)

shall accrue solely to herein petitioner, John’s

sole remaining beneficiary.

---

45