CERVANTES v.

FAJARDO (for Face to Face)

Issue: Custody of Child re Adoption is for the benefit of the child

G.R. No. 79985 January 27, 1989

Topic: Child welfare paramount (Adoption is for the benefit of the child)

Summary:

Respondents are common-law husband and wife. When the wife got pregnant, they
decided to offer the child to her sister and her husband for adoption (petitioners).
Eventually, a petition for adoption was filed by the petitioners and was granted. However,
one day, petitioner received a letter from respondents demanding P150k. Otherwise, they
would get back their child. Petitioners refused so the respondent wife took the child from
her yaya and brought her to her house. Petitioner files a petition for a writ of Habeas
Corpus.

Ruling:

The Court affirmed the decision of RTC granting petitioners of custody and care of the child
and ruled that the petition for writ of Habeas Corpus be granted.

Petitioners who are legally married appear to be morally, physically, financially, and
socially capable of supporting the minor and giving her a future better than what the
natural mother, who is not only jobless but also maintains an illicit relation with a married
man, can most likely give her. The minor has been legally adopted by petitioners with the
full knowledge and consent of respondents.
A decree of adoption has the effect, among others, of dissolving the authority vested in
natural parents over the adopted child, except where the adopting parent is the spouse of
the natural parent of the adopted, in which case, parental authority over the adopted shall
be exercised jointly by both spouses.

REPUBLIC v. CA & BOBILES

G.R. No. 92326 January 24, 1992

Topic: Adoption by husband and wife, Retroactive Effect

Law Applied: Family Code

Summary:

Zenaida filed a petition to adopt Jason Condat on Feb. 2 1988 (before the effectivity of the
Family Code). The RTC granted the petition in favor of Zenaida and her husband Dioscoro.
Pending appeal before the CA, the Family Code (which provides that spouses should adopt
jointly) took effect.

For Q and A re retroactive effect of adoption laws

(Once the expert had finished discussing the transition/changes/ comparison of adoption
laws from Civil Code to Domestic Adoption Act, the host will ask)
(adlib)
Host: Atty, you mentioned kanina that before, it is not required that husband and wife
must jointly adopt. What If, only the wife filed for adoption February 1988, which is before
the effectivity of the Family Code, then during its pendency, the Family Code took effect.
And we learned that in Family Code, the husband and wife must jointly adopt. How will it
affect the adoption process Atty?
Expert: Under the CYWC, a petition may be filed by either or both the husband and wife
while under the FC, joint adoption is mandatory. Now, when the Family Code took
effect, it should be applied retroactively to the present petition for adoption.
you mentioned some qualifications had changed.
As provided under Article 256, the Family Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it
does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or
other laws (on screen)
If we look at Art 185 of the Family Code, we will learn that is remedial in nature. Procedural
laws are ordinarily accorded a retrospective construction in the sense that they may be
applied to pending actions and proceedings as well as to future actions.
Now the question is, whether the wife had acquired or vested rights before the effectivity
of the FC.
1. Supposed the wife just filed for the petition, wala pang decision and Court (RTC)
or the procedural steps was not yet completed, then we can say na that wala pang
vested rights and wife. Then the general rule shall apply, both the husband and
wife should jointly adopt.
2. However, if the procedural steps had been completed or there has been judgment
by the court, then the wife had already acquired the right of the wife to file the
petition alone and to have the same proceed to final adjudication was already
vested and cannot be prejudiced or impaired by subsequent enactment of law.

Host (follow up question, transition to the discussion re consent required): When we say
the wife can file the petition for adoption alone, as opposed to joint adoption by the wife.
Does it mean that the wife can adopt kahit di aware ang husband or let’s say, si wife lang
may gusto pero ayaw ng husband?

Expert: The law provides that a married person without the written consent of the
spouse may not adopt. ( Art 28(1) on screen). Kaya, if only the wife filed for the
adoption but without the consent of the husband, the action will not prosper. We have to
understand that parental authority shall be exercised by both the husband and the wife
with respect to the adopted child.
( Host will ask for the consent requirements)

Ruling:

The Court ruled that the Family Code should be applied retroactively, since Zenaida’s right
to file the petition for adoption alone had already vested upon her filing of the same during
the effectivity of the Child and Youth Welfare Code. The Court also affirmed the decree in
favor of both Zenaida and Dioscoro as the latter was effectively a co-petitioner by annexing
his Affidavit of Consent. Furthermore, the Court primarily considered the best interests
and welfare of the child. Commented [RdlR1]: Art 256 FC.
This code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance
IN RE PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE AND MICHAEL LIM with the Civil Code or other laws
G.R. No. 168992-3 May 21, 2009

Topic: Adoption by husband and wife, Aliens as adopters, Need for consent, Effects of
Adoption

Law Applied: R.A. 8552 Domestic Adoption Act

Summary:

Spouses Monina and Primo Lim were childless. Subsequently, two minor children whose
parents were unknown were entrusted to them by a certain Lucia Ayuban. Being so eager
to have children of their own, Monina and Primo registered the children to make it appear
that they were the children’s parents. The spouses reared and cared for the children as if
they were their own. Unfortunately, in 1997, Primo died. On December 27 2000, Monina
married Angel Olario, an American citizen.

Monina decided to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty given under RA 8552 to
individuals who simulated the birth of a child. In 2002, she filed separate petitions for
adoption of Michelle and Michael before the Trial Court. Michelle was then 25 years old
and already married and Michael was 18 years and 7 months old. Michelle and her
husband, Michael and Olario gave their consent to the adoption as evidenced by their
Affidavits of consent.

Issues and Rulings:

1. Whether petitioner who has remarried can SINGLY adopt

No. The law is explicit. Husband and wife SHALL jointly adopt.
The word “shall” means that joint adoption 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. 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 the petitioner fall under any of the 3 exceptions enumerated in Section
7 of RA 8552. 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.

2. Whether the adoption should be granted considering that the alien spouse
consented to the adoption

No. 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 Sec. 7 of
RA 8552, which none of these qualifications were shown and proved during the
trial.

The requirements on residency and certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt

cannot likewise be waived pursuant to Sec. 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.

3. Whether or not joint parental authority is not anymore necessary since the
children have been emancipated having reached the age of majority.

Petitioner’s contention 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. The father and the
mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their common
children. Even the remarriage of the surviving parent shall not affect the parental
authority over the children, unless the court appoints another person to be
guardian of the person or property of the children.
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- 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. However, parental authority is merely just
one of the effects of legal adoption.