G.R. No. 40766 - Price vs. Yu Chengco

On May 5, 2016, Nena Bagcat-Gullas and her husband, Jose R. Gullas, filed a Petition for Adoption and Correction of Entries in the Birth Record of minor Jo Anne Maria Ariraya (Jo Anne) before RTC, Branch 24, Cebu City (SP Proc. No. R-CEB-16-02302-SP).
Jo Anne’s biological mother, Settie Asiah Ariraya, left Jo Anne in petitioners’ care; petitioners provided for her needs after diligent efforts to locate Settie failed.

On October 24, 2017, the RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance, set the hearing on December 1, 2017, directed publication of notice, and ordered service on the Solicitor General, Local Civil Registrar, DSWD Regional Director, and RTC social worker for a social case study.
At the December 1, 2017 hearing, the petition was read thrice in open court with no opposition.

On May 18, 2018, the RTC granted the petition for adoption. On June 6, 2018, respondents—legitimate children of Jose (Joselito F., Joie Marie F., and John Vicente F. Gullas)—filed an Entry of Appearance, which the RTC denied on June 8, 2018, for lack of party status.
On July 16, 2018, the RTC issued a Certificate of Finality. On July 17, 2018, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asserting their indispensability and need to consent. Petitioners opposed on August 20, 2018, citing executed Affidavits of Consent.
On October 3, 2018, the RTC granted respondents’ motion, vacated the May 18 decision and July 16 certificate, reinstated the case, and ordered personal summons upon respondents as indispensable parties. Petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on November 21, 2018, the RTC ruling the original decision void for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioners filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari before the CA, seeking injunctive relief. On June 22, 2021, the CA denied the petition and injunctive prayers as moot and academic.
The CA held that under R.A. No. 8552, legitimate children of the adopter aged ten or over are indispensable parties; it further found the Affidavits of Consent not genuine upon notarial register inspection, rendering the RTC decision void. Respondents’ lack of genuine consent precluded vesting jurisdiction and constituted an exception to the immutability doctrine.

Whether the CA erred in affirming that the RTC’s May 18, 2018 decision was void for lack of service of summons on indispensable parties and absence of valid written consent.

Whether the CA erred in ruling that the respondents’ Affidavit of Consent was not genuine.