1

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-21951 November 27, 1964
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE MINOR CHARLES JOSEPH BLANCAFLOR WEEKS. UGGI LINDAMAND THERKELSEN and
ERLINDA G. BLANCAFLOR, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent-appellee.
Campos, Mendoza & Hernandez for petitioners-appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General and J. Domingo de Leon for respondent-appellee.
REYES, J.B.L., J .:
This appeal was taken against a decision of the Manila Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, in its special Proceedings, No. D-00007, denying
appellants' application for adoption of the minor Charles Joseph Blancaflor Weeks.
The factual background of the case is stated in the decision appealed from to be as follows:
In this adoption proceeding, the petitioners are husband and wife who were married on June 2, 1962, or barely a year ago. The
minor sought to be adopted, born on February 16, 1960, is the natural child of petitioner wife. His father was Charles Joseph Week,
who abandoned mother and child after the latter's birth. He is said to have gone back to the United States.
Except for the legal impediment hereinafter to be mentioned, the facts before the Court may warrant the approval of the adoption
sought herein. Petitioner husband is a Danish subject, who has been granted permanent residence in the Philippines (Exhs. "D" and
"E"). A former employee of Scandinavian Airlines System, he is now Manager of M. Y. Travel International Hongkong Ltd., with a
monthly salary of P1,200.00. plus allowances. It does not appear that either petitioner has been convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude. On the other hand, the minor sought to be adopted has been living with them ever since the marriage of petitioners.
2

Petitioner husband has treated the minor as his son, and the latter calls him "Daddy." Although the possibility exists that petitioners
may yet have their own children, the adoption at this time, before any such children are begotten, may strengthen, rather than
disrupt, future domestic relations.
The court a quo denied the adoption sought, saying:
In Sp. Proc. No. D-00011, adoption of Benigno Lim, this Court has had occasion to rule that a Filipino cannot adopt an alien
(Chinese) minor about 19 years old. The adoption would not confer Philippine citizenship on the Chinese, but could definitely
legalize his stay in this country. It was also stated that conversely, an alien cannot adopt a Filipino unless the adoption would make
the Filipino minor a citizen of the alien's country. As petitioner husband in this case is a Danish subject, it has to be held that he
cannot legally adopt the minor Charles Joseph Blancaflor Weeks, whose citizenship is of this country, following that of his natural
mother.
If we understand the decision correctly, the adoption was denied solely because the same would not result in the loss of the minor's Filipino citizenship
and the acquisition by him of the citizenship of his adopter. Unfortunately, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court did not expound the reasons for
its opinion; but it is clear that, if pursued to its logical consequences, the judgment appealed from would operate to impose a further prerequisite on
adoptions by aliens beyond those required by law. As pointed out by the Solicitor General in his brief, the present Civil Code in force (Article 335) only
disqualifies from being adopters those aliens that are either(a) non-residents or (b) who are residents but the Republic of the Philippines has broken
diplomatic relations with their government. Outside of these two cases, alienage by itself alone does not disqualify a foreigner from adopting a person
under our law. Petitioners admittedly do not fall in either class.
The criterion adopted by the Court a quo would demand as a condition for the approval of the adoption that the process should result in the acquisition,
by the person adopted, of the alien citizenship of the adopting parent. This finds no support in the law, for, as observed by this Court in Ching Leng vs.
Galang, G.R. No. L-11931, promulgated on 27 October 1958, the citizenship of the adopter is a matter political, and not civil, in nature, and the ways in
which it should be conferred lay outside the ambit of the Civil Code. It is not within the province of our civil law to determine how or when citizenship in
a foreign state is to be acquired. The disapproval of the adoption of an alien child in order to forestall circumvention of our exclusion laws does not
warrant, denial of the adoption of a Filipino minor by qualified alien adopting parents, since it is not shown that our public policy would be thereby
subverted.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the court a quo is directed to allow the adoption sought. Without costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Parades, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation


IMPLEMENTING RULES
AND REGULATIONS
3





Pursuant to the authority of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development under Article VIII, Section 24 of Republic Act 8552, otherwise
known as "The Domestic Adoption Act of 1998", the following Rules and
Regulations are hereby promulgated to govern the adoption of Filipino
children within the Philippines.




ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. Affirmation of Policy. It is the policy of the State to ensure
that every child remains under the care and custody of his/her biological
parents and be provided with love, care, understanding and security toward
the full development of his/her personality. When care of the biological
parents is unavailable or inappropriate and no suitable alternative parental
care or adoption within the childs extended family is available, adoption by
an unrelated person shall be considered. However, no direct placement of a
child to a non-related shall be countenanced.
Adoption is the most complete means whereby permanent family life can be
restored to a child deprived of his/her biological family.
The childs best welfare and interest shall be the paramount consideration in
all questions relating to his/her care and custody.
SECTION 2. Applicability. These Rules shall apply to the adoption in the
Philippines of a Filipino child by a Filipino or alien qualified to adopt under
Article III, Section 7 of RA 8552.
Adoption of a child by any member of his/her extended family shall likewise
be governed by these Rules.

ARTICLE II
DEFINITION OF TERMS
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. As used in these Rules, unless the
context otherwise requires, the following terms shall mean:
"Act" shall refer to Republic Act No. 8552 otherwise known as the
"Domestic Adoption Act of 1998."
"Department" shall refer to the Department of Social Welfare and
Development.
"Child" shall refer to a person below eighteen (18) years of age.
"A child legally available for adoption" shall refer to a child who has
been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to the Department or to a duly
licensed and accredited child-placing or child-caring agency, freed of the
parental authority of his/her biological parent(s) or guardian or adopter(s)
in case of rescission of adoption.
"Voluntarily committed child" shall refer to one whose parent(s)
knowingly and willingly relinquishes parental authority to the
Department.
"I nvoluntarily committed child" shall refer to one whose parent(s),
known or unknown, has been permanently and judicially deprived of
parental authority due to abandonment; substantial, continuous or rejected
neglect; abuse; or incompetence to discharge parental responsibilities.
"Abandoned child" shall refer to one who has no proper parental care or
legal guardianship or whose parent(s) has deserted him/her for a period of
at least six (6) continuous months and has been judicially declared as
such.
"Foundling" shall refer to a deserted or abandoned infant or a child
found, with parents, guardian, or relatives being unknown, or a child
committed in an orphanage or charitable or similar institution with
unknown facts of birth and parentage and registered in the Civil Register
as a "foundling".
4

"Deed of Voluntary Commitment" shall refer to the written and notarized
instrument relinquishing parental authority and committing the child to the
care and custody of the Department executed by the childs biological
parent(s) or by the childs legal guardian in their absence, mental
incapacity or death, to be signed in the presence of an authorized
representative of the Department after counseling and other services have
been made available to encourage the childs biological parent(s) to keep
the child. A minor, after proper counseling by a licensed social worker,
may also execute the deed of voluntary commitment.
"Child Study Report" shall refer to a study of a childs legal status,
placement history, psychological, social, spiritual, medical, ethno-cultural
background, and that of his/her biological family as basis in determining
the most desirable placement for him/her.
"Home Study Report" shall refer to a study of the motivation and
capacity of the prospective adoptive parents to provide a home that meets
the needs of a child.
"Matching" shall refer to the judicious selection from the regional or
interregional levels of a family for a child based on the childs needs and
in his/her best interest as well as the capability and commitment of the
adoptive parents to provide such needs and promote a mutually satisfying
parent-child relationship.
"Supervised trial custody" shall refer to the period during which a social
worker oversees the adjustment and emotional readiness of both adopting
parents and adopted child in stabilizing their filial relationship
"Licensed Social Worker" shall refer to one who possesses a bachelor of
science in social work degree as a minimum education requirement and
must have passed the government licensure examination for social
workers as required by Republic Act 4373.
"Child-placing agency" shall refer to a private non-profitable or
charitable institution or government agency licensed and accredited by the
Department to provide comprehensive child welfare services including but
not limited to, receiving applications for adoption/foster care, evaluating
the prospective adoptive/foster parents preparing the home study and all
other processes as provided for in Article V of the Rules.
"Child-caring agency" shall refer to a private non-profitable or charitable
institution or government agency licensed and accredited by the
Department that provides twenty-four (24) hour residential care services
for abandoned, orphaned, neglected or voluntarily committed children
"Simulation of birth" shall refer to the tampering of the civil registry
making it appear in the birth records that a certain child was born to a
couple or a person who is not his/her biological mother and/or his/her
biological father, causing such child to lose his/her true identity and
status.
"Extended Family" shall refer to a relative of a child both at the paternal
and maternal side within the fourth degree of consanguinity.
"Biological Parents" shall refer to the childs mother and father by nature
or the mother alone if the child is unacknowledged illegitimate child.
"Prospective Adoptive Parent(s)" shall refer to person mentioned under
Section 7 of the Act who have filed an application for adoption.
"Prospective Adoptee" shall refer to one who is legally available for
adoption as defined in Section 3 (d) of this Rule or one who falls under the
enumeration in Section 8 of the Act.
"Pre-Adoption Services" shall refer to psycho-social services provided by
professionally trained social workers of the Department, the social
services units of local government, private and government health
facilities, Family Courts, licensed and accredited child-caring and child-
placing agency and such other individuals or entities involved in adoption
as may be authorized by the Department.
"Post-Adoption Services" shall refer to psychosocial services and support
services provided by professionally trained social workers from offices
above-mentioned after the issuance of the Decree of Adoption.
"Residence" shall refer to a persons actual and legal stay in the
Philippines for three (3) continuous years immediately prior to the filing
of application for adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption
decree is entered; Provided that temporary absences for professional,
business or emergency reasons not exceeding sixty (60) days in one (1)
year shall not be considered as breaking the continuity requirement;
Provided further that the Department may extend this period in
meritorious cases.
"Alien" shall refer to any person, not a Filipino citizen, who enters and
remains in the Philippines and in possession of a valid passport or travel
documents and visa.

ARTICLE III
PRE-ADOPTION SERVICES
SECTION 4. Pre-Adoption Services. Pre-Adoption Services including
counseling shall be provided by professionally trained social workers of the
Department, the social services units of local government, private and
government health facilities, Family Courts, licensed and accredited child-
caring and child-placing agency and such other individuals or entities
involved in adoption as may be authorized by the Department to the
following:
5

1. Biological Parent(s)
1. Biological Parents shall be counseled regarding their
options:
o to keep the child and avail of services and assistance;
o avail of temporary child care arrangements such as
foster care; or
o relinquish the child for adoption
2. Counseling shall be provided in a language and manner
understandable to the biological parent(s)/legal
guardian on the implications of relinquishing his/her
parental authority over the child focusing on:
o the loss of parental rights over the child and as a rule,
not having further contact with the child;
o the importance of providing relevant information on
the child, their own medical history and family
background;
o the possibility that the child may be placed for
adoption within the Philippines or in a foreign
country;
o the possibility that in the future, there may be
communication with the child at their or the childs
initiative.
o the right to reconsider his/her decision to relinquish
his/her child within six (6) months from signing the
Deed of Voluntary Commitment (DVC) subject to
assessment by the Department.
3. Continuing services shall be provided after
relinquishment to cope with feelings of loss, etc. and
other services for his/her reintegration to the community.
4. The biological parent(s) who decided to keep the child
shall be provided with adequate services and
assistance to fulfill parental responsibilities.
2. Prospective Adoptive Parent(s)
1. Biological Parents shall be counseled regarding their options:
to disseminate basic information about adoption
including the adoption process and procedures and
the effects of adoption.
to inform them of the general background of children
in need of adoptive homes including children with
special needs;
to develop among prospective adoptive parents a
respect for the childs biological origin and an
awareness of the importance of telling the child that
he/she is adopted.
To provide a support group for adoptive parents
which shall give them a venue for sharing their
adoption experiences.
2. A certificate shall be issued by the Department to the prospective
adoptive parents attesting that they have undergone pre-adoption
services.
The certificate shall be made a pre-requisite of the homestudy.
3. Prospective Adoptee
A prospective adoptee shall be provided with counseling and
other support services appropriate to his/her age and maturity,
and in a manner and language that the child comprehends,
especially to enable him/her to understand why he/she has been
relinquished for adoption.
In the case of a prospective adoptee whose consent to his/her
own adoption is necessary, the social worker/counselor shall
consider the childs wishes and opinions, ensure that his/her
consent is voluntary and duly inform him/her of the effects of
such consent.
SECTION 5. Location of Unknown Parent(s). It shall be the duty of the
Department or the child-caring or child-placing agency which has custody of
the child to exert all efforts to locate his/her unknown biological parents.
The following shall be sufficient proof that such efforts to locate the biological
parents, guardians or relatives have been made:
6

Certification from radio and/or TV stations that the case was
aired on three (3) different occasions; and
Publication in newspapers of general or local circulation
whichever is appropriate to the circumstances.
If the biological parent(s) is located, he/she will be assessed to determine
their willingness to keep the child and their parenting capability. If
reunification is desired it shall be effected after the parent(s) and child
undergo counseling.
If efforts to locate childs parent/s fail, the child shall be registered as a
foundling and within three (3) months from the time he/she is found, be the
subject of legal proceedings where he/she shall be declared abandoned. If
the childs parents are located but reunification is not desired, the parent(s)
shall execute a deed of voluntary commitment to the department.
SECTION 6. Support Services. the Department and other authorized
agencies shall organize and assist groups for adoptive parents, biological
parents and adoptees, provide parent and family life education sessions and
referral for specialized services.

ARTICLE IV
ELIGIBILITY
SECTION 7. Who May Adopt. any Filipino citizen or alien residing in the
Philippines who has the qualification and none of the disqualifications under
the Act may be eligible to adopt if he/she:
o is of legal age.
o is at least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee; Provided,
however that the minimum age gap between the adopter and the
adoptee may not be required if the adopter is the biological
parent or sibling of the adoptee or the spouse of the adoptees
parent;
o has the capacity to act and assume all the rights and duties
incident to the exercise of parental authority;
o is of good moral character and has not been convicted of any
crime involving moral turpitude;
o is in a position to support, educate and care for his/her legitimate
and illegitimate children and the child to be adopted in keeping
with the means of the family;
o has undergone pre-adoption services as required in Section 4 of
the Act.
In addition to these qualifications, an alien may adopt if he/she:
is a citizen of a state which has diplomatic relations with the
Philippines;
has been certified by his/her diplomatic or consular office or any
appropriate agency that:
o he/she is qualified to adopt in his/her country; and
o his/her government will allow the adoptee to enter the
adopters country and reside there permanently as an
adopted child;
has submitted the necessary clearances and such other
certifications as may be required by the Department.

SECTION 8. Who May Be Adopted the following may be adopted:
a. any person below eighteen (18) years of age who has been
administratively or judicially declared available for adoption in
accordance with the procedures as indicated in Articles 142 to
155 of the P.D. 603: The Child and Youth Welfare Code;
b. the legitimate son/daughter of one spouse by the other spouse.
c. the illegitimate son/daughter by a qualified adopter to improve
his/her status to that of 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 previously been 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)
SECTION 9. Persons Whose Consent Is Necessary To The Adoption.
In addition to the Consent to Adopt by the Department under Section 22 of
these Rules, the written consent of the following persons to the adoption
7

shall be given in the required legal form and attached to every petition for
adoption:
a. the prospective adoptee, if ten (10) years of age or over.
b. the prospective adoptees biological parents of the child or legal
guardian;
c. the prospective adopters legitimate and adopted sons/daughters
who are ten (10 years of age or over and, if any illegitimate
sons/daughters living with them;
d. the prospective adopters spouse in appropriate cases; and
prospective adopted in appropriate cases.
The foregoing consent shall be given freely after they have been properly
counseled as required under Section 4 by a social worker who shall attest in
the same document that the required counseling and information have been
given.

ARTICLE V
PROCEDURE
SECTION 10. Hurried Decision. In all proceedings for adoption, a
comprehensive study report prepared by a licensed social worker shall be
submitted to the court as proof that the biological parent(s) has been
properly counseled and provided other support services:
1. to exhaust all measures to strengthen family ties and keep the child;
2. to ensure that their decision to relinquish their child for adoption is not
caused by stress, anxiety or pressure; and
3. to ascertain that such decision does not result in improper financial gain
for those involved in it.
SECTION 11. Attendance In Adoption Fora and Seminar. In
accordance with Section 4.2 of these Rules, prospective adoptive parents
shall attend adoption fora and seminars prior to filing their application to
adopt.
SECTION 12. Fees and Charges. Pursuant to Section 23 (d) of the Act,
child-caring and child-placement agencies may charge reasonable fees as
determined by the Department to cover expenses in providing adoption
services. The applicant(s) shall be apprised of the fees at the start of the
adoption process.
SECTION 13. Application for Adoption. A person eligible to adopt under
Article III, Section 7 of the Act who desires to adopt a child in the Philippines
whether a relative or not has attended adoption fora and seminar, shall file
his/her application for adoption with the Department directly or with a social
service office of a local government unit, or with any licensed accredited
child placing agency. Spouses shall file their application jointly.
1. Authenticated birth certificate
2. Marriage Contract or Divorce, Annulment, Declaration of
Nullity, or Legal Separation documents;
3. Written consent to the adoption by the legitimate and adopted
sons/daughters, and illegitimate sons/daughters if living with the
applicant, who are at least ten (10) years old;
4. Physical and medical evaluation by a duly licensed physician
and psychological evaluation by a psychologist;
5. NBI/Police Clearance
6. Latest income tax return or any other documents showing
financial capability, e.g. Certificate of Employment, Bank
Certificate or Statement of Assets and Liabilities;
7. Three (3) character references, namely from the local
church/minister, the employer, and a non-relative member of the
immediate community who have known the applicant(s) for at
least three (3) years;
8. 3x5 sized pictures of the applicant(s) and his/her immediate
family taken within the last three (3) months;
9. Certificate of attendance to pre-adoption fora or seminars.
In addition, foreign nationals shall submit the following:
10. Certification that the applicant(s) have legal capacity to adopt in
his/her country and that his/her country has a policy, or is a
signatory of an international agreement, which allows a child
adopted in the Philippines by its national to enter his/her country
and permanently reside therein as his/her legitimate child which
may be issued by his/her countrys diplomatic or consular office
or central authority n intercountry adoption or any government
agency which has jurisdiction over child and family matters; or
in the absence of any of the foregoing, the Philippine
Intercountry Adoption Board may also certify that the
Philippines and the applicants country have an existing
8

agreement or arrangement on intercountry adoption whereby a
child who has been adopted in the Philippines or has a pre-
adoption placement approved by the Board is allowed to enter
and remain as permanent resident in the applicants country as
his/her legitimate child.
11. Certificate of Residence in the Philippines issued by the Bureau
of Immigration or Department of Foreign Affairs, as
appropriate;
12. Two (2) character references from a non-relatives who knew the
applicant(s) in the country of which he/she is a citizen or was a
resident prior to residing in the Philippines, except for those who
have resided in the Philippines for more than fifteen (15) years;
13. Police Clearance from all places of residence in the past two
years immediately prior to residing in the Philippines.
In the case of an applicant who is residing abroad, but is otherwise qualifies
to adopt in the Philippines under the provisions of the Act, the Homestudy
report shall be prepared by an accredited foreign adoption agency. However,
a certification from the Intercountry Adoption Board shall be required to
ensure that said agency is accredited.
SECTION 15. Disapproval of Adoption Application. the applicants shall
be informed as soon as possible about the approval or disapproval of the
adoption application. In case of disapproval, the social worker shall help
them understand the reasons for their disapproval and shall assist or refer
them for appropriate services in areas where they need to be helped. Except
when found by the social worker that such application can no longer be
considered, there shall be no prejudice to future application of said
applicants.
SECTION 16. Certificate Of Availability Of Child For Adoption. No child
shall be placed for adoption unless a clearance has been obtained from the
Department that said child is available for adoption. The Department shall
not issue such certification unless the child Study Report prepared by a duly
licensed and accredited social worker of the Department, or of a child caring
agency recommends that the childs best interest will be served by
adoption.
The Department shall issue the Certificate of Availability for Adoption not
later than fifteen (15) days after expiration of the six (6) month period after
execution of Deed of Voluntary Commitment by the childs parents or legal
guardian required under PD No. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code or
after receipt of entry of judgement in case of involuntary commitment. Copy
of the Certificate of Availability for Adoption and Child Study Report shall be
sent to the Child Welfare Specialist Group (CWSG) for purpose of placement
of the child for adoption.
SECTION 17. Supporting Documents Of Child Study Report. The child
study report shall be prepared only by a licensed and accredited social
worker of the Department or child caring agency not involved in child
placement. Such child study report shall include assessment and
recommendations of the social worker as to the alternative child custody and
care appropriate for the child.
The following documents shall accompany the child report:
1. Authenticated birth or foundling certificate, when appropriate;
2. Written Consent to adoption by the biological parent(s) or the
legal guardian and the written consent of the child if at least ten
(10) years old, signed in the presence of the social worker of the
Department or child caring agency after proper counseling as
prescribed in Section III of these Rules;
3. Death Certificate of biological parents, Decree of abandonment
or Deed of Voluntary Commitment, as appropriate;
4. Medical evaluation of the child and his/her parent(s), if
available;
5. Psychological Evaluation when appropriate;
6. Picture of the child

SECTION 18. Submission Of Case Records Of Prospective Adoptees
and Prospective Adoptive Parents. Case Records of prospective
adoptees and prospective adoptive parents shall be submitted to the
concerned Adoption Resource and Referral Office (ARRO) which was
established according to Section 23 of the Act for matching.
SECTION 19. Matching. The matching of the child to an approved
adoptive parent(s) shall be carried out during the regular matching
conference by the Matching Committee otherwise called the Child Welfare
Specialist Group (CWSG) in the regional level where the social workers of
the child and family are present. Subject to approval of the Department, the
CWSG shall fix its own internal rules and procedures in accordance with the
rules of Court; Provided, however, that records of children and approved
adoptive parent/s not matched within thirty (30) days in the regional level
shall be forwarded to the Departments Central Office for interregional
9

matching; Provided further that children with special needs shall be
immediately forwarded if not matched in the first meeting, except under
special circumstances.
The matching proposal made by the CWSG shall be approved by the
Department.
SECTION 20. Interregional Matching. Records of prospective adoptees
and approved adoptive parent/s not matched in the regional level shall be
forwarded to the Departments Central Office for interregional matching by
the Interregional Adoptive Placement Committee whose internal rules and
procedures shall be established by the Department.
SECTION 21. Pre-Placement. The respective social worker who prepared
the reports shall also prepare the adoptive family and the child, physically
and psychologically before actual placement.
SECTION 22. Placement. The physical transfer of a child from a child
caring agency or foster home to the prospective adoptive parents who shall
be responsible for his/her care and custody shall be made after the
necessary form are accomplished and the Pre-Adoption Placement Authority
(PAPA) has been issued after approval of the Regional Director for
placement within the region or by the Department Secretary or his/her duly
authorized representative in cases of interregional placements.
SECTION 23. Supervised Trial Custody. The placement of the child shall
take effect upon issuance of the Pre-Adoption Placement Authority by the
Department after which the supervised trial custody shall commence.
During the supervised trial custody, the social worker shall conduct monthly
home visits to monitor adjustment of the prospective adopter(s) and child to
each other and submit progress report to the Department. A copy of these
reports shall be given to the child caring agency where the child came from.
The court may upon its own motion or on motion of the petitioner, reduce or
dispense with the trial period if it finds that it is to the best interest of the
child. In such case, the court shall state its reasons for reducing said period.
SECTION 24. Disruption of Pre-Adoptive Placement. If the
placement/relationship is found unsatisfactory by the child or the adopter(s),
or both, or if the social worker finds that the continued placement of the child
is not in the childs best interest, said relationship/placement shall be
suspended by the Department which shall recommend to the Adoption
Resource and Referral Office to consider another possible placement.
Should there be no available prospective adoptive family, the Department
shall arrange for the childs temporary care. No termination of placement
shall be made unless it is shown that the social worker has exhausted all
efforts to remove the cause of the unsatisfactory relationship/placement
within a reasonable period of time.
SECTION 25. New Placement. In the event of the disruption of the pre-
adoptive placement, the Department shall arrange without delay a new
placement of the child, or, if inappropriate, other alternative long term care.
The consent of the child to the measures taken under this section shall be
obtained having regard to his/her age and level of maturity in particular.
SECTION 26. Consent to Adoption. If the adjustment of the
child/adopter(s) is satisfactory, the social worker shall forward to the
Department the final supervisory report which shall include the
recommendation for the issuance of the written consent to adoption to be
executed by the Department.
SECTION 27. Filing Of Petition For Adoption. the prospective adoptive
parent(s) shall initiate judicial proceeding by filing the petition to adopt not
later than 30 days from date of receipt of the Departments written consent to
adoption.
SECTION 28. Issuance of Decree of Adoption and Entry of
J udgement. If, after considering the recommendation and reports of the
social worker and other evidence, the Court is satisfied that the adopter(s)
are qualified to adopt, then an adoption decree and an Entry of Judgement
shall be issued stating the name by which the child is to be known. A copy of
the decree of adoption shall be forwarded to the Department. The effectivity
of the decree shall be as of the date of the original petition was filed.
SECTION 29. Travel Authority of Adopted Child. No adoptee shall be
issued a travel authority unless a decree of adoption has already became
final and executory. In this respect, the amended birth certificate shall be
presented. If for any valid reason the same cannot be presented, the
application for travel authority shall be accompanied by the duplicate original
or certified true copy of the decree of adoption and entry of judgement
issued by the court which promulgated the decision and a certification from
the Office of the Solicitor General at the decision is final and executory and
that no appeal there from has been filed by the said office.
10

SECTION 30. Recording Of The Court Decision. A court decision on
adoption as well as the finality of decision shall be submitted by the clerk of
court or in his default, by the adopting parent(s), to the Local Civil Registry
Office of the City/municipality where the court issuing the same is situated,
for entry in the Register of Court Decrees, not later that thirty (30) days after
the court decision has become final and executory. Such Local Civil Registry
Office shall submit one copy of the court decision to the Local Civil Registrar
of the city or municipality where the birth of the adopted child was registered
and the latter office shall have the duty to prepare the amended certificate of
live birth of the adopted child.
SECTION 31. Civil Registry Record. The adopted child shall be entitled
to the issuance of a new certificate of live birth. Amendment to the certificate
of live birth shall be done in accordance with the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Office of the Civil Registrar General and Section 14 of
the Act.
A copy of the new birth certificate shall be transmitted by the local civil
registrar to the National Statistics Office within 30 days from registration.
SECTION 32. Post Adoption Services. Post Adoption Services which
shall include counseling shall be made available by the social workers of the
Department, social services unit of the local government, child placing and
child caring agencies to develop the adoptee, adopter and the biological
parents.

ARTICLE VI
EFFECTS OF ADOPTION
SECTION 33. Effects of Adoption. Adoption shall have the following
effects:
1. sever all legal ties between the biological parents and the adoptee, except
when the biological parent is the spouse of the adopter;
2. Deem the adoptee as a legitimate child of the adopter;
3. Give adopter and adoptee reciprocal rights and obligations arising from
the relationship of parent and child, including but not limited to:
i. the right of the adopter to choose the name, the child is to be
known; and
ii. the right of the adopter and adoptee to legal and compulsory
heirs of each other
SECTION 34. Benefits. the adoptive parents shall, with respect to the
adopted child, enjoy all the benefits to which biological parents are entitled.
Maternity and paternity benefits and other benefits given to biological
parents upon the birth of a child shall be enjoyed if the adoptee is below
seven (7) years of age as of the date the child is placed with the adoptive
parents thru the Pre-Adoptive Placement Authority issued by the
Department.

ARTICLE VII
RESCISSION OF ADOPTION
SECTION 35. Grounds for Rescission. Adoption being in the best
interest of the child, shall not be subject to rescission by the adopter(s). The
adoption may be rescinded only upon the petition of the adoptee with the
assistance of the Department, if a minor or if over eighteen (18) years of age
but is incapacitated, on any of the following grounds committed by the
adopter(s):
1. Repeated physical and verbal maltreatment by the adopter(s) despite
having undergone counseling;
2. Attempt on the life of the adoptee;
3. Sexual assault or violence; or
4. Abandonment and failure to comply with parental obligations
SECTION 36. Disinheritance of Adoptee. the adopter(s) may disinherit
the adoptee for cause provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code.
SECTION 36. Disinheritance of Adoptee. the adopter(s) may disinherit
the adoptee for cause provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code.
SECTION 37. Effects of Rescission. Rescission of Adoption shall have
the following effects.
1. Restoration of parental authority of the adoptees biological parent(s), if
known or the legal custody of the Department of the adoptee if still a
minor or incapacitated.
11

2. The reciprocal rights and obligations of the adopter(s) and the adoptee to
each other shall be extinguished.
3. Cancellation of the new birth certificate of the adoptee by the Civil
Registrar as ordered by the court and restoration of the adopters original
birth certificate.
4. Succession rights shall revert to its status prior to adoption but only as of
the date of judgement of judicial rescission.
5. Vested rights acquired prior to judicial rescission shall be respected.
All the foregoing effects of rescission of adoption shall be without prejudice
to the penalties imposable under the Penal Code if the criminal acts are
properly proven.

ARTICLE VIII
ADOPTION RESOURCE AND REFERRAL OFFICE
SECTION 38. Functions. The Adoption Resource and Referral Office
(ARRO) shall be under the supervision of the Departments Central Office
and Regional Office Director.
The functions of the ARRO shall include the following:
1. Monitor the existence, number and flow of children legally
available for adoption and prospective adopter(s), so as to
facilitate their matching;
2. Maintain a nationwide/regional information and educational
campaign o domestic adoption;
3. Keep records of adoption proceedings;
4. Generate resources to help child-caring and child-placing
agencies and maintain viability;
5. Do policy research in collaboration with the Intercountry
Adoption Board and other concerned agencies; and
6. Act as the Secretariat to the Child Welfare Specialist Group
(CWSG) during Interregional/regional matching conferences.
SECTION 39. Composition Of the CSWG. The CWSG shall have five (5)
members composed of a social worker of the Department, a lawyer
specializing on child and youth welfare cases, a physician, a psychiatrist or
psychologist, and a representative of a non-government organization of
adoptive parents or child welfare agencies who shall be selected in
consultation with the recognized association or organization of adoptive
parents and child caring agencies.
The Department shall appoint qualified persons who shall serve in the
CWSG for a term of two (2) years which may be renewed for another term.
Only CWSG members who are not with the Department shall be entitled to a
per diem for every meeting attended but not to exceed four (4) meetings a
month.
SECTION 40. Functions Of The CWSG. The CWSG shall have the
following functions:
1. Match children for adoption
2. Implement an integrated system and network of selection and matching of
applicants and children;
3. Initiate, review and recommend changes in policies concerning child
placement and other matters related to child welfare;
4. Perform such other functions and duties as may be prescribed by the
Department.

ARTICLE IX
ADOPTION RESOURCE AND REFERRAL OFFICE
SECTION 41. Procedure for Rectification. A person who has under his
care and custody a child whose birth registration has been simulated to
make it appear that the child is his/her own son or daughter shall file in the
appropriate court an application for correction of the birth registration and for
adoption of the child. For the purpose of availing of the benefit under Section
22 of the Act, said person shall initiate said proceedings within five (5) years
from the effectivity of the Act and shall thereafter complete said proceedings
wherein he/she shall prove that the simulation of birth was made for the best
interest of the child, and the child has been consistently considered and
treated as his/her own son/daughter. The Department shall conduct its own
child and home study reports through a licensed and duly accredited social
worker to determine if said conditions exist.
In all cases of rectification of simulated birth and adoption of said child, the
Department shall secure a deed of voluntary commitment executed by the
childs biological parent(s) or a judicial declaration of abandonment
12

transferring legal custody of the child to the Department; Provided that if
adoption by the person who has custody of the child is recommended, said
person shall retain custody of the child unless the court decided otherwise.
Any publication to determine the whereabouts of the childs biological
parents and relatives shall be limited to the circumstances at the time the
child was found without revealing the present identity of the child and his/her
current custodian. Any inquiries regarding the child shall be directed to the
Department.

ARTICLE X
REGISTRATION OF BIRTH
SECTION 42. Registration of Birth. All hospitals, attending physicians
and midwives in attendance at the birth of a child shall register such birth of
a child not later than 30 days from the date of said birth as required under
the Civil Register Law.

ARTICLE XI
CONFIDENTIALITY OF ADOPTION RECORDS
SECTION 43. Confidentiality. All records, documents and court
proceedings relating to the adoption shall be confidential. No copy thereof
shall be released without determination that it is for reasons substantially
connected with or arising out of the adoption.
In such event, records and information shall be disclosed in a way that will
prevent persons who do not have a legitimate interest, from learning the fact
that a person has been adopted or, if that is revealed, the identity of his/her
biological parents.

ARTICLE XII
REPORTING VIOLATIONS
SECTION 44. Office In Charge of Handling Violations. The CWSG,
child caring/placing agency and every person who has knowledge of any
violation under the Act or related laws shall immediately report the same to
the nearest police station, local government unit or office of the Department
who shall act thereon within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the report.
Any delay or negligence in acting on the violations shall be dealt with
criminally and administratively.
Failure of adopters to initiate legalization of the adoption of children placed in
their care and custody within six (6) months from the end of supervised trial
custody shall be considered an act not in the best interest of the child.

ARTICLE XIII
VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES
Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of the act shall be dealt
with accordingly pursuant to Article VII Section 21 of the Act.

ARTICLE XIV
FINAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 45. Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Rule. Any doubt
or ambiguity in the provisions of these Rules shall be interpreted in the best
interest of the child.

SECTION 46. Repealing Clause. All rules and regulations, orders,
resolutions, and parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Rules
are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SECTION 47. Separability Clause. If for any reason, any section or
provision of these Rules is declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other
sections or provisions hereof which are not affected shall continue in full
force and effect.
13


SECTION 48. Effectivity. These Rules shall take effect fifteen (15) days
after its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation, except
those which pertain to self-executing provision of this Act.

Approved in _____________________________ this _____ day of _______
in the year of our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety Eight.

FIRST DIVISION


IN RE: PETITION FOR G.R. Nos. 168992-93
ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P.
LIM, Present:

MONINA P. LIM, PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
Petitioner. CARPIO,
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x CORONA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and
IN RE: PETITION FOR BERSAMIN, JJ.
ADOPTION OF MICHAEL JUDE
P. LIM,
Promulgated:
MONINA P. LIM,
Petitioner. May 21, 2009
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x



D E C I S I O N


CARPIO, J .:


The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Monina P. Lim (petitioner)
seeking to set aside the Decision
[1]
dated 15 September 2004 of the Regional Trial
Court, General Santos City, Branch 22 (trial court), in SPL. PROC. Case Nos. 1258
and 1259, which dismissed without prejudice the consolidated petitions for adoption
of Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude P. Lim.


The Facts

The following facts are undisputed. 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 childrens parents. The
children
[2]
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.
[3]
Michael was 11 days old when
Ayuban brought him to petitioners clinic. His date of birth is 1 August 1983.
[4]


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
[5]
given under Republic Act No. 8552
[6]
(RA 8552) to those individuals
14

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.

Michelle and her husband gave their consent to the adoption as evidenced by
their Affidavits of Consent.
[7]
Michael also gave his consent to his adoption as
shown in his Affidavit of Consent.
[8]
Petitioners husband Olario likewise executed
an Affidavit of Consent
[9]
for the adoption of Michelle and Michael.

In the Certification issued by the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD), Michelle was considered as an abandoned child and the
whereabouts of her natural parents were unknown.
[10]
The DSWD issued a similar
Certification for Michael.
[11]



The Ruling of the Trial Court

On 15 September 2004, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the
petitions. The trial court 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.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision but the motion
was denied in the Order dated 16 June 2005. In denying the motion, the trial court
ruled that petitioner did not fall under any of the exceptions under Section 7(c),
Article III of RA 8552. Petitioners argument that mere consent of her husband
would suffice was untenable because, under the law, there are additional
requirements, such as residency and certification of his qualification, which the
husband, who was not even made a party in this case, must comply.

As to the argument that the adoptees are already emancipated and joint
adoption is merely for the joint exercise of parental authority, the trial court ruled
that joint adoption is not only for the purpose of exercising parental authority
because an emancipated child acquires certain rights from his parents and assumes
certain obligations and responsibilities.

Hence, the present petition.


Issue

Petitioner appealed directly to this Court raising the sole issue of whether or
not petitioner, who has remarried, can singly adopt.


The Courts Ruling

15

Petitioner contends that the rule on joint adoption must be relaxed because it is
the duty of the court and the State to protect the paramount interest and welfare of
the child to be adopted. Petitioner argues that the legal maxim dura lex sed lex is
not applicable to adoption cases. She argues that joint parental authority is not
necessary in this case since, at the time the petitions were filed, Michelle was 25
years old and already married, while Michael was already 18 years of age. Parental
authority is not anymore necessary since they have been emancipated having
attained the age of majority.

We deny the petition.

J oint Adoption by Husband and Wife

It is undisputed that, at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, petitioner
had already remarried. She filed the petitions by herself, without being joined by her
husband Olario. We have no other recourse but to affirm the trial courts 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 adoptees 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 aliens
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 (4
th
) 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 (4
th
) 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

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

16

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)


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.
[12]


The law is clear. There is no room for ambiguity. 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 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
adopters country as the latters adopted child. None of these qualifications were
shown and proved during the trial.

These requirements on residency and certification of the aliens 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.


Effects of Adoption

Petitioner contends that joint parental authority is not anymore necessary since
the children have been emancipated having reached the age of majority. This is
untenable.

Parental authority includes caring for and rearing the children for civic
consciousness and efficiency and the development of their moral, mental and
physical character and well-being.
[13]
The father and the mother shall jointly
exercise parental authority over the persons of their common children.
[14]
Even the
remarriage of the surviving parent shall not affect the parental authority over the
children, unless the court appoints another person to be the guardian of the person or
property of the children.
[15]


17

It is true that when the child reaches the age of emancipation that is, when
he attains the age of majority or 18 years of age
[16]
emancipation terminates
parental authority over the person and property of the child, who shall then be
qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life.
[17]
However, parental authority is
merely just one of the effects of legal adoption. Article V of RA 8552 enumerates
the effects of adoption, thus:

ARTICLE V

EFFECTS OF ADOPTION

SEC. 16. Parental Authority. - Except in cases where the
biological parent is the spouse of the adopter, 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).

SEC. 17. 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. To this end, the adoptee is
entitled to love, guidance, and support in keeping with the means
of the family.

SEC. 18. Succession. - In legal and intestate succession,
the adopter(s) and the adoptee shall have reciprocal rights of
succession without distinction from legitimate filiation.
However, if the adoptee and his/her biological parent(s) had left
a will, the law on testamentary succession shall govern.
Adoption has, thus, the following effects: (1) sever all legal ties between the
biological parent(s) and the adoptee, except when the biological parent is the spouse
of the adopter; (2) deem the adoptee as a legitimate child of the adopter; and (3) give
adopter and adoptee reciprocal rights and obligations arising from the relationship of
parent and child, including but not limited to: (i) the right of the adopter to choose
the name the child is to be known; and (ii) the right of the adopter and adoptee to be
legal and compulsory heirs of each other.
[18]
Therefore, even if emancipation
terminates parental authority, the adoptee is still considered a legitimate child of the
adopter with all the rights
[19]
of a legitimate child such as: (1) to bear the surname
of the father and the mother; (2) to receive support from their parents; and (3) to be
entitled to the legitime and other successional rights. Conversely, the adoptive
parents shall, with respect to the adopted child, enjoy all the benefits to which
biological parents are entitled
[20]
such as support
[21]
and successional rights.
[22]


We are mindful of the fact that adoption statutes, being humane and salutary,
hold the interests and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration. They
are designed to provide homes, parental care and education for unfortunate, needy or
orphaned children and give them the protection of society and family, as well as to
allow childless couples or persons to experience the joys of parenthood and give
them legally a child in the person of the adopted for the manifestation of their
natural parental instincts. Every reasonable intendment should be sustained to
promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate objectives of the law.
[23]
But, as
we have ruled in Republic v. Vergara:
[24]


We are not unmindful of the main purpose of adoption
statutes, which is the promotion of the welfare of the children.
Accordingly, the law should be construed liberally, in a manner
that will sustain rather than defeat said purpose. The law must
also be applied with compassion, understanding and less severity
in view of the fact that it is intended to provide homes, love, care
and education for less fortunate children. Regrettably, the Court
is not in a position to affirm the trial courts decision favoring
adoption in the case at bar, for the law is clear and it cannot be
modified without violating the proscription against judicial
legislation. Until such time however, that the law on the matter
is amended, we cannot sustain the respondent-spouses petition
for adoption. (Emphasis supplied)
18



Petitioner, being married at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, should
have jointly filed the petitions with her husband. We cannot make our own
legislation to suit petitioner.

Petitioner, in her Memorandum, insists that subsequent events would show that
joint adoption could no longer be possible because Olario has filed a case for
dissolution of his marriage to petitioner in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

We disagree. The filing of a case for dissolution of the marriage between
petitioner and Olario is of no moment. It is not equivalent to a decree of dissolution
of marriage. Until and unless there is a judicial decree for the dissolution of the
marriage between petitioner and Olario, the marriage still subsists. That being the
case, joint adoption by the husband and the wife is required. We reiterate our ruling
above that since, at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, petitioner was
married to Olario, joint adoption is mandatory.





WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 15
September 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, General Santos City, Branch 22 in
SPL. PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and 1259. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.



ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice


WE CONCUR:



REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 164948 June 27, 2006
DIWATA RAMOS LANDINGIN Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
19

CALLEJO, SR., J .:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court is the Decision
1
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77826
which reversed the Decision
2
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac
City, Branch 63 in Civil Case No. 2733 granting the Petition for Adoption of
the petitioner herein.
The Antecedents
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 petition
3
for the adoption of minors Elaine Dizon Ramos who
was born on August 31, 1986;
4
Elma Dizon Ramos, who was born on
September 7, 1987;
5
and Eugene Dizon Ramos who was born on August 5,
1989.
6
The minors are the natural children of Manuel Ramos, petitioners
brother, and Amelia Ramos.
Landingin, as petitioner, alleged in her petition that when Manuel died on
May 19, 1990,
7
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 abroad;
as Maria passed away on November 23, 2000, petitioner desires to adopt
the children; the minors have given their written consent
8
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
9
to the adoption of the minors.
Petitioners brother, Mariano Ramos, who earns substantial income, signified
his willingness and commitment to support the minors while in petitioners
custody.
Petitioner prayed that, after due hearing, judgment be rendered in her favor,
as follows:
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed to this Honorable Court that
after publication and hearing, judgment be rendered allowing the adoption of
the minor children Elaine Dizon Ramos, Elma Dizon Ramos, and Eugene
Dizon Ramos by the petitioner, and ordering that the minor childrens name
follow the family name of petitioner.
Petitioner prays for such other reliefs, just and equitable under the
premises.
10

On March 5, 2002, the court ordered the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) to conduct a case study as mandated by Article 34 of
Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and to submit a report thereon
not later than April 4, 2002, the date set for the initial hearing of the
petition.
11
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its
appearance
12
but deputized the City Prosecutor of Tarlac to appear in its
behalf.
13
Since her petition was unopposed, petitioner was allowed to
present her evidence ex parte.
14

The petitioner testified in her behalf. She also presented Elaine Ramos, the
eldest of the adoptees, to testify on the written consent executed by her and
her siblings.
15
The petitioner marked in evidence the Affidavit of Consent
purportedly executed by her children Ann, Errol, Dennis and Ricfel Branitley,
all surnamed Landingin, and notarized by a notary public in Guam, USA, as
proof of said consent.
16

On May 24, 2002, Elizabeth Pagbilao, Social Welfare Officer II of the DSWD,
Field Office III, Tarlac, submitted a Child Study Report, with the following
recommendation:
In view of the foregoing, undersigned finds minors Elaine, Elma & Eugene all
surnamed Ramos, eligible for adoption because of the following reasons:
1. Minors surviving parent, the mother has voluntarily consented to
their adoption by the paternal aunt, Diwata Landingin this is in view
of her inability to provide the parental care, guidance and support
they need. An Affidavit of Consent was executed by the mother
which is hereto attached.
2. The three minors subject for adoption have also expressed their
willingness to be adopted and joins the petitioners in Guam, USA in
the future. A joint Affidavit of consent is hereto attached. The
minors developed close attachment to the petitioners and they
regarded her as second parent.
20

3. The minors are present under the care of a temporary guardian
who has also family to look after. As young adolescents they really
need parental love, care, guidance and support to ensure their
protection and well being.
In view of the foregoing, it is hereby respectfully recommended that minors
Elaine D. Ramos, Elma D. Ramos and Eugene D. Ramos be adopted by
their maternal aunt Diwata Landingin. Trial custody is hereby further
recommended to be dispensed with considering that they are close relatives
and that close attachments was already developed between the petitioner
and the 3 minors.
17

Pagbilao narrated what transpired during her interview, as follows:
The mother of minors came home together with her son John Mario, this
May 2002 for 3 weeks vacation. This is to enable her appear for the personal
interview concerning the adoption of her children.
The plan for the adoption of minors by their paternal aunt Diwata Landingin
was conceived after the death of their paternal grandmother and guardian.
The paternal relatives including the petitioner who attended the wake of their
mother were very much concerned about the well-being of the three minors.
While preparing for their adoption, they have asked a cousin who has a
family to stay with minors and act as their temporary guardian.
The mother of minors was consulted about the adoption plan and after
weighing the benefits of adoption to her children, she voluntarily consented.
She realized that her children need parental love, guidance and support
which she could not provide as she already has a second family & residing
in Italy. Knowing also that the petitioners & her children have been
supporting her children up to the present and truly care for them, she
believes her children will be in good hands. She also finds petitioners in a
better position to provide a secured and bright future to her children.
18

However, petitioner failed to present Pagbilao as witness and offer in
evidence the voluntary consent of Amelia Ramos to the adoption; petitioner,
likewise, failed to present any documentary evidence to prove that Amelia
assents to the adoption.
On November 23, 2002, the court, finding merit in the petition for adoption,
rendered a decision granting said petition. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that henceforth, minors Elaine Dizon
Ramos, Elma Dizon Ramos, Eugene Dizon Ramos be freed from all legal
obligations obedience and maintenance from their natural parents and that
they be declared for all legal intents and purposes the children of Diwata
Ramos Landingin. Trial custody is dispensed with considering that parent-
children relationship has long been established between the children and the
adoptive parents. Let the surnames of the children be changed from "Dizon-
Ramos" to "Ramos-Landingin."
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Local Civil Registrar of Tarlac,
Tarlac for him to effect the corresponding changes/amendment in the birth
certificates of the above-mentioned minors.
SO ORDERED.
19

The OSG appealed
20
the decision to the Court of Appeals on December 2,
2002. In its brief
21
for the oppositor-appellant, the OSG raised the following
arguments:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR
ADOPTION DESPITE THE LACK OF CONSENT OF THE PROPOSED
ADOPTEES BIOLOGICAL MOTHER.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR
ADOPTION DESPITE THE LACK OF THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE
PETITIONERS CHILDREN AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR
ADOPTION DESPITE PETITIONERS FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THAT
SHE IS IN A POSITION TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED ADOPTEES.
On April 29, 2004, the CA rendered a decision
22
reversing the ruling of the
RTC. It held that petitioner failed to adduce in evidence the voluntary
consent of Amelia Ramos, the childrens natural mother. Moreover, the
affidavit of consent of the petitioners children could not also be admitted in
21

evidence as the same was executed in Guam, USA and was not
authenticated or acknowledged before a Philippine consular office, and
although petitioner has a job, she was not stable enough to support the
children. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision dated
November 25, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Tarlac City in
Spec. Proc. No. 2733 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
23

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration
24
on May 21, 2004, which the
CA denied in its Resolution dated August 12, 2004.
25

Petitioner, thus, filed the instant petition for review on certiorari
26
on
September 7, 2004, assigning the following errors:
1. THAT THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT HAS OVERLOOKED
AND MISAPPLIED SOME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH ARE OF WEIGHT AND IMPORTANCE AND WHICH IF
CONSIDERED WOULD HAVE AFFECTED THE RESULT OF THE
CASE.
2. THAT THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
CONCLUDING THAT THE PETITIONER-APPELLEE IS NOT
FINANCIALLY CAPABLE TO SUPPORT THE THREE
CHILDREN.
27

The issues raised by the parties in their pleadings are the following: (a)
whether the petitioner is entitled to adopt the minors without the written
consent of their biological mother, Amelia Ramos; (b) whether or not the
affidavit of consent purportedly executed by the petitioner-adopters children
sufficiently complies with the law; and (c) whether or not petitioner is
financially capable of supporting the adoptees.
The Courts Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
It has been the policy of the Court to adhere to the liberal concept, as stated
in Malkinson v. Agrava,
28
that adoption statutes, being humane and salutary,
hold the interest and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration
and are designed to provide homes, parental care and education for
unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give them the protection of
society and family in the person of the adopter as well as to allow childless
couples or persons to experience the joys of parenthood and give them
legally a child in the person of the adopted for the manifestation of their
natural parental instincts. Every reasonable intendment should thus be
sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate objectives of
the law.
29

However, in Cang v. Court of Appeals,
30
the Court also ruled that the
liberality with which this Court treats matters leading to adoption insofar as it
carries out the beneficent purposes of the law to ensure the rights and
privileges of the adopted child arising therefrom, ever mindful that the
paramount consideration is the overall benefit and interest of the adopted
child, should be understood in its proper context and perspective. The
Courts position should not be misconstrued or misinterpreted as to extend
to inferences beyond the contemplation of law and jurisprudence. Thus, the
discretion to approve adoption proceedings is not to be anchored solely on
best interests of the child but likewise, with due regard to the natural rights of
the parents over the child.
31

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 latters souse, if any;
22

(e) The spouse, if any, of the person adopting or to be adopted.
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.
32

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.
We note that in her Report, Pagbilao declared that she was able to interview
Amelia Ramos who arrived in the Philippines with her son, John Mario in
May 2002. If said Amelia Ramos was in the Philippines and Pagbilao was
able to interview her, it is incredible that the latter would not require Amelia
Ramos to execute a Written Consent to the adoption of her minor children.
Neither did the petitioner bother to present Amelia Ramos as witness in
support of the petition.
Petitioner, nonetheless, argues that the written consent of the biological
mother is no longer necessary because when Amelias 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. It is the paternal
relatives, including petitioner, who provided for the childrens financial needs.
Hence, Amelia, the biological mother, had effectively abandoned the
children. Petitioner further contends that it was by twist of fate that after 12
years, when the petition for adoption was pending with the RTC that Amelia
and her child by her second marriage were on vacation in the Philippines.
Pagbilao, the DSWD social worker, was able to meet her, and during the
meeting, Amelia intimated to the social worker that she conformed to the
adoption of her three children by the petitioner.
Petitioners 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.
33
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.
34

Merely permitting the child to remain for a time undisturbed in the care of
others is not such an abandonment.
35
To dispense with the requirement of
consent, the abandonment must be shown to have existed at the time of
adoption.
36

In this case, petitioner relied solely on her testimony and that of Elaine
Ramos to prove her claim that Amelia Ramos had abandoned her children.
Petitioners testimony on that matter follows:
Q Where is the mother of these three children now?
A She left for Italy on November 20, 1990, sir.
Q At the time when Amelia Ramos left for Italy, was there an instance where
she communicated with the family?
A None, sir.
Q How about with her children?
A None, sir.
Q Do you know what place in Italy did she reside?
A I do not know, sir.
Q Did you receive any news about Amelia Ramos?
A What I know, sir, was that she was already married with another man.
Q From whom did you learn that?
A From others who came from Italy, sir.
23

Q Did you come to know whether she has children by her second marriage?
A Yes, sir, she got two kids.
37

Elaine, the eldest of the minors, testified, thus:
Q Where is your mother now?
A In Italy, sir.
Q When did your mother left for Italy?
A After my father died, sir.
Q How old were you when your mother left for Italy in 1990?
A Two years old, sir.
Q At the time when your mother left for Italy, did your mother communicate
with you?
A No, sir.
38

However, the Home Study Report of the DSWD Social Worker also stated
the following:
IV. Background of the Case:
x x x x
Since the mother left for Italy, minors siblings had been under the care and
custody of their maternal grandmother. However, she died in Nov. 2001 and
an uncle, cousin of their deceased father now serves as their guardian. The
petitioner, together with her children and other relatives abroad have been
supporting the minor children financially, even during the time that they were
still living with their natural parents. Their mother also sends financial
support but very minimal.
39

x x x x
V. Background Information about the Minors Being Sought for Adoption:
x x x x
As the eldest she tries her best to be a role model to her younger siblings.
She helps them in their lessons, works and has fun with them. She also
encourages openness on their problems and concerns and provides petty
counseling. In serious problems she already consult (sic) her mother and
petitioner-aunt.
40

x x x x
In their 5 years of married life, they begot 3 children, herein minors, Amelia
recalled that they had a happy and comfortable life. After the death of her
husband, her in-laws which include the petitioner had continued providing
support for them. However being ashamed of just depending on the support
of her husbands relatives, she decided to work abroad. Her parents are also
in need of financial help as they are undergoing maintenance medication.
Her parents mortgaged their farm land which she used in going to Italy and
worked as domestic helper.
When she left for Italy in November 1990, she entrusted her 3 children to the
care & custody of her mother-in-law who returned home for good, however
she died on November 2000.
While working in Italy, she met Jun Tayag, a married man from Tarlac. They
became live-in partners since 1995 and have a son John Mario who is now 2
years old. The three of them are considered Italian residents. Amelia
claimed that Mr. Tayag is planning to file an annulment of his marriage and
his wife is amenable to it. He is providing his legitimate family regular
support.
Amelia also sends financial support ranging from P10,000-P15,000 a month
through her parents who share minimal amount of P3,000-P5,000 a month
to his (sic) children. The petitioner and other paternal relatives are
continuously providing support for most of the needs & education of minors
up to present.
41

Thus, when Amelia left for Italy, she had not intended to abandon her
children, or to permanently sever their mother-child relationship. She was
merely impelled to leave the country by financial constraints. Yet, even while
abroad, she did not surrender or relinquish entirely her motherly obligations
24

of rearing the children to her now deceased mother-in-law, for, as claimed by
Elaine herself, she consulted her mother, Amelia, for serious personal
problems. Likewise, Amelia continues to send financial support to the
children, though in minimal amounts as compared to what her affluent in-
laws provide.
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.
42
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.
43
Again, it is the best interest of the child that takes
precedence in adoption.
Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that the Court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for
which the evidence is offered must be specified. The offer of evidence is
necessary because it is the duty of the Court to rest its findings of fact and
its judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties.
Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or
purposes for which such document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of
paper barren of probative weight. Mere identification of documents and the
markings thereof as exhibits do not confer any evidentiary weight on
documents unless formally offered.
44

Petitioner failed to offer in evidence Pagbilaos Report and of the Joint
Affidavit of Consent purportedly executed by her children; the authenticity of
which she, likewise, failed to prove. The joint written consent of petitioners
children
45
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,
46
which
states:
Section 2. An instrument or document acknowledged and authenticated in a
foreign country shall be considered authentic if the acknowledgment and
authentication are made in accordance with the following requirements:
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before (1) an ambassador,
minister, secretary of legation, charg d affaires, consul, vice-
consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines, acting
within the country or place to which he is accredited, or (2) a notary
public or officer duly authorized by law of the country to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where
the act is done.
(b) The person taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the
person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him,
and that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged
that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be
under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if
not, his certificate shall so state. In case the acknowledgment is
made before a notary public or an officer mentioned in subdivision
(2) of the preceding paragraph, the certificate of the notary public or
the officer taking the acknowledgment shall be authenticated by an
ambassador, minister, secretary of legation, charg de affaires,
consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the
Philippines, acting within the country or place to which he is
accredited. The officer making the authentication shall certify under
his official seal that the person who took the acknowledgment was
at the time duly authorized to act as notary public or that he was
duly exercising the functions of the office by virtue of which he
assumed to act, and that as such he had authority under the law to
take acknowledgment of instruments or documents in the place
where the acknowledgment was taken, and that his signature and
seal, if any, are genuine.
As the alleged written consent of petitioners legitimate children did not
comply with the afore-cited law, the same can at best be treated by the
Rules as a private document whose authenticity must be proved either by
anyone who saw the document executed or written; or by evidence of the
genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the makers.
47

Since, in the instant case, no further proof was introduced by petitioner to
authenticate the written consent of her legitimate children, the same is
inadmissible in evidence.
In reversing the ruling of the RTC, the CA ruled that petitioner was not stable
enough to support the children and is only relying on the financial backing,
support and commitment of her children and her siblings.
48
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
25

need arise. The OSG, again in its comment, banks on the statement in the
Home Study Report that "petitioner has limited income." 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.
Since the primary consideration in adoption is the best interest of the child, it
follows that the financial capacity of prospective parents should also
be carefully evaluated and considered. Certainly, the adopter should be in a
position to support the would-be adopted child or children, in keeping with
the means of the family.
According to the Adoption Home Study Report
49
forwarded by the
Department of Public Health & Social Services of the Government of Guam
to the DSWD, petitioner is no longer supporting her legitimate children, as
the latter are already adults, have individual lives and families. At the time of
the filing of the petition, petitioner was 57 years old, employed on a part-time
basis as a waitress, earning $5.15 an hour and tips of around $1,000 a
month. Petitioners main intention in adopting the children is to bring the
latter to Guam, USA. She has a house at Quitugua Subdivision in Yigo,
Guam, but the same is still being amortized. Petitioner likewise knows that
the limited income might be a hindrance to the adoption proceedings.
Given these limited facts, it is indeed doubtful whether petitioner will be able
to sufficiently handle the financial aspect of rearing the three children in the
US. She only has a part-time job, and she is rather of age. While petitioner
claims that she has the financial support and backing of her children and
siblings, the OSG is correct in stating that the ability to support the adoptees
is personal to the adopter, as adoption only creates a legal relation between
the former and the latter. Moreover, the records do not prove nor support
petitioners allegation that her siblings and her children are financially able
and that they are willing to support the minors herein. The Court, therefore,
again sustains the ruling of the CA on this issue.
While the Court recognizes that petitioner has only the best of intentions for
her nieces and nephew, there are legal infirmities that militate against
reversing the ruling of the CA. In any case, petitioner is not prevented from
filing a new petition for adoption of the herein minors.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO YNARES-
SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-
MARTINEZ
Asscociate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO