Jose,
however, did not validly obtain Rosario's consent.
ROSARIO MATA CASTRO AND JOANNE BENEDICTA His submission of a fraudulent affidavit of consent
CHARISSIMA M. CASTRO, A.K.A. "MARIA SOCORRO M. in her name cannot be considered compliance of
CASTRO" AND "JAYROSE M. CASTRO," Petitioners, the requisites of the law. Had Rosario been given
v. JOSE MARIA JED LEMUEL GREGORIO AND ANA MARIA notice by the trial court of the proceedings, she
REGINA GREGORIO, Respondents. would have had a reasonable opportunity to
contest the validity of the affidavit. Since her
consent was not obtained, Jose was ineligible to
adopt.
F A C T S:
The law also requires the written consent of the
Atty. Jose adopted Jen and Regina. Atty. Jose is the estranged adopter's children if they are 10 years old or
husband of Rosario and the father of Joanne. Rosario alleged older. In Article III, Section 9 of Republic Act No.
that she and Jose were married but left Jose after a couple of 8552, the consent of the adopter's other children
months because of the incompatibilities between them. They is necessary as it ensures harmony among the
however, briefly reconciled and Rosario gave birth to Joanne. prospective siblings. It also sufficiently puts the
Afterwards, they separated permanently because Rosario other children on notice that they will have to
alleged that Jose had homosexual tendencies. share their parent's love and care, as well as their
future legitimes, with another person. It is
Jose, who was then 70 years old, filed a petition for adoption undisputed that Joanne was Jose and Rosario's
and alleged that Jed and Regina were his illegitimate children legitimate child and that she was over 10 years
with Lilibeth whom Rosario alleged was his erstwhile old at the time of the adoption proceedings. Her
housekeeper. written consent, therefore, was necessary for the
adoption to be valid.
A Home Study Report was conducted and at the time of the
report, Jose was said to be living with Jed and Regina 2) No. Jose manifested to the trial court that he and
temporarily and that the children have allegedly been in his Rosario were childless, thereby preventing
custody since Lilibeth's death. Joanne from being notified of the proceedings. As
her written consent was never obtained, the
The trial court approved the adoption. However, Rosario filed a adoption was not valid.
complaint for disbarment against Jose. She alleged that Jose
had been remiss in providing support for their daughter,
For the adoption to be valid, petitioners' consent
Joanne, for the past 36 years and that Jose had been
was required by Republic Act No. 8552. Personal
showering gifts to his driver and alleged lover, Larry, and even
service of summons should have been effected
went to the extent of adopting Larry's two children, Jed and
on the spouse and all legitimate children to
Regina, without her and Joanne's knowledge and consent.
ensure that their substantive rights are protected.
It is not enough to rely on constructive notice as
Thereafter, Jose died. Rosario and Joanne filed a petition for
in this case. Since the trial court failed to
annulment of judgment of the decision of the trial court
personally serve notice on Rosario and Joanne of
approving Jed and Regina's adoption. They allege that
the proceedings, it never validly acquired
Rosario's affidavit of consent was fraudulent and that Jed and
jurisdiction.
Regina are not actually Jose's illegitimate children but the
legitimate children of Lilibeth and Larry who were married at
the time of their birth. The Court of Appeals denied the petition.
I S S U E:
1) W/N Rosario and Joanne should have been given
notice as adoption laws require their consent as a
requisite in the proceedings.
H E L D:
1) Yes. The law on adoption requires that the
adoption by the father of a child born out of
wedlock obtain not only the consent of his wife
but also the consent of his legitimate children.
Under Article III, Section 7 of Republic Act No.
8552, the husband must first obtain the consent
of his wife if he seeks to adopt his own children
born out of wedlock. The provision is mandatory.
As a general rule, the husband and wife must file
a joint petition for adoption. In the absence of any
decree of legal separation or annulment, Jose
and Rosario remained legally married despite
their de facto separation. For Jose to be eligible
to adopt Jed and Regina, Rosario must first
2) W/N Herbert Cang abandoned his minor children
H E L D:
HERBERT CANG, petitioner,
vs. 1) No. The written consent of the natural parent is
COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses RONALD V. CLAVANO indispensable for the validity of the decree of
and MARIA CLARA CLAVANO, respondents. adoption. Nevertheless, the requirement of
written consent can be dispensed with if the
F A C T S: parent has abandoned the child or that such
parent is "insane or hopelessly intemperate." The
Petitioner Herbert Cang and Anna Marie Clavano were married court may acquire jurisdiction over the case even,
and begot three children. Anna Marie however learned of her without the written consent of the parents or one
husband's alleged extramarital affair with Wilma Soco, a family of the parents provided that the petition for
friend of the Clavanos. Upon learning of her husband's alleged adoption alleges facts sufficient to warrant
illicit liaison, Anna Marie filed a petition for legal separation exemption from compliance therewith.
which was granted. They agreed that the children of the parties
shall be entitled to a monthly support of 1,000 and that the
Anna Marie shall be entitled to enter into any contract or
agreement with any person or persons, natural or juridical In the instant case, only the affidavit of consent of
without the written consent of Herbert Cang. the natural mother was attached to the petition for
adoption. Petitioner's consent, as the natural
Petitioner then left for the United States where he sought a father is lacking.
divorce from Anna Marie where the court issued the divorce
decree and also granted sole custody of the three minor
children to Anna Marie, reserving "rights of visitation at all
reasonable times and places" to petitioner.
2) No. In reference to abandonment of a child by his
parent, the act of abandonment imports "any
Meanwhile, private respondents Ronald V. Clavano and Maria conduct of the parent which evinces a settled
Clara Diago Clavano, respectively the brother and sister-in-law purpose to forego all parental duties and
of Anna Marie, filed for the adoption of the three minor Cang relinquish all parental claims to the child." It
children. Anna Marie likewise filed an affidavit of consent means "neglect or refusal to perform the natural
alleging that her husband had "evaded his legal obligation to and legal obligations of care and support which
support" his children and that her husband had "long forfeited parents owe their children."
his parental rights" over the children.
I S S U E:
MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner. The use of the word "shall" in the above-quoted
provision means that joint adoption by the husband
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 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
IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHAEL JUDE P. is elevated to the level of a legitimate child, it is but
LIM, natural to require the spouses to adopt jointly. The
rule also insures harmony between the spouses.
MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner.
The law is clear. There is no room for ambiguity.
F A C T S: 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
Petitioner Monina is married to Primo Lim. They were childless.
herself, without joining her husband, Olario, the trial
Minor children, whose parents were unknown, were entrusted
court was correct in denying the petitions for adoption
to them by a certain Ayuban. Monina and Lim registered the
on this ground.
children to make it appear that they were the children’s
parents.
2) No. It is true that when the child reaches the age of
emancipation — that is, when he attains the age of
The spouses reared and cared for the children as if they were
majority or 18 years of age — emancipation
their own. They sent the children to exclusive schools. They
terminates parental authority over the person and
used the surname "Lim" in all their school records and
property of the child, who shall then be qualified and
documents. However, Lim died. Thereafter, Monina married
responsible for all acts of civil life. However, parental
Olario, an American citizen.
authority is merely just one of the effects of legal
adoption.
Petitioner decided to adopt the children by availing of the
amnesty given under RA 8552 to those individuals who
Adoption has, thus, the following effects: (1) sever all
simulated the birth of a child. She then filed separate petitions
legal ties between the biological parent(s) and the
for the adoption of Michelle and Michael. Michelle and her
adoptee, except when the biological parent is the
husband gave their consent to the adoption as well as Michael
spouse of the adopter; (2) deem the adoptee as a
and Olario.
legitimate child of the adopter; and (3) give adopter
and adoptee reciprocal rights and obligations arising
The trial court dismissed the petitions. It ruled that since from the relationship of parent and child, including but
petitioner had remarried, petitioner should have filed the not limited to: (i) the right of the adopter to choose the
petition jointly with her new husband. name the child is to be known; and (ii) the right of the
adopter and adoptee to be legal and compulsory heirs
I S S U E: of each other. Therefore, even if emancipation
terminates parental authority, the adoptee is still
considered a legitimate child of the adopter with all
1) W/N the petitioner, who has remarried, can singly
the rights of a legitimate child such as: (1) to bear the
adopt
surname of the father and the mother; (2) to receive
support from their parents; and (3) to be entitled to the
2) W/N joint parental authority is not anymore necessary legitime and other successional rights. Conversely,
since the children have been emancipated upon the adoptive parents shall, with respect to the adopted
reaching the age of majority child, enjoy all the benefits to which biological parents
are entitled such as support and successional rights.
could be possible. Under the Domestic Adoption Act
provision, which Sampana suggested, the alien
adopter can jointly adopt a relative within the fourth
degree of consanguinity or affinity of his/her Filipino
spouse, and the certification of the alien’s qualification
to adopt is waived.
I S S U E:
H E L D:
BERNARDINA P. BARTOLOME, Petitioner, From the foregoing, it is apparent that the biological
vs. parents retain their rights of succession to the estate
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM and SCANMAR MARITIME of their child who was the subject of adoption. While
SERVICES, INC., Respondents. the benefits arising from the death of an SSS covered
employee do not form part of the estate of the
adopted child, the pertinent provision on legal or
F A C T S: intestate succession at least reveals the policy on the
rights of the biological parents and those by adoption
John was employed as electrician by Scanmar Maritime vis-à-vis the right to receive benefits from the
Services, Inc., on board the vessel Maersk Danville. As such, adopted. In the same way that certain rights still
he was enrolled under the government's Employees' attach by virtue of the blood relation, so too should
Compensation Program (ECP). Unfortunately, an accident certain obligations, which, We rule, include the
occurred on board the vessel whereby steel plates fell on John, exercise of parental authority, in the event of the
which led to his untimely death the following day. untimely passing of their minor offspring’s adoptive
parent. We cannot leave undetermined the fate of a
minor child whose second chance at a better life
John was, at the time of his death, childless and unmarried.
under the care of the adoptive parents was snatched
Thus, petitioner Bernardina P. Bartolome, John’s biological
from him by death’s cruel grasp. Otherwise, the
mother and, allegedly, sole remaining beneficiary, filed a claim
adopted child’s quality of life might have been better
for death benefits under PD 626 with the SSS. However, SSS
off not being adopted at all if he would only find
denied the claim because she was no longer considered as the
himself orphaned in the end. Thus, We hold that
parent of JOHN COLCOL as he was legally adopted by
Cornelio’s death at the time of John’s minority
CORNELIO COLCOL.
resulted in the restoration of petitioner’s parental
authority over the adopted child.
The Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) affirmed
the ruling of the SSS.
Cornelio’s adoption of John, without more, does not
deprive petitioner of the right to receive the benefits
I S S U E: stemming from John’s death as a dependent parent
given Cornelio’s untimely demise during John’s
1) W/N the biological parents of the covered, but legally minority. Since the parent by adoption already died,
adopted, employee considered secondary then the death benefits under the Employees'
beneficiaries and, thus, entitled, in appropriate cases, Compensation Program shall accrue solely to herein
to receive the benefits under the ECP petitioner, John's sole remaining beneficiary.
H E L D: