Case Digest (G.R. No. 264146)
Facts:
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 a minor named Jo Anne Maria Ariraya in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, which was assigned as SP Proc. No. R-CEB-16-02302-SP. Jo Anne's biological mother, Settie Asiah Ariraya, had left her without any known father, and the couple had been supporting both Settie and Jo Anne, providing them with love and care. After Settie abandoned Jo Anne, the couple continued to care for her as their own child. The RTC issued an order on October 24, 2017, deeming the petition sufficient and scheduled a hearing for December 1, 2017, requiring publication of the order and notification to relevant authorities. During the hearing, no objections were raised. On May 18, 2018, the RTC granted the adoption petition. However, on June 6, 2018, the Wee Lim and Salas Law Firm filed an Entry of Appearance for the respondents—Jose's childre...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 264146)
Facts:
Background of the Case
Petitioner Nena Bagcat-Gullas, together with her husband Jose R. Gullas, filed a Petition for Adoption and Correction of Entries in the Birth Record of minor Jo Anne Maria Ariraya on May 5, 2016. The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Cebu City, and docketed as SP Proc. No. R-CEB-16-02302-SP.
Adoption Proceedings
Jo Anne’s biological mother, Settie Asiah Ariraya, left her under the care of Bagcat-Gullas and Jose, who provided for all her needs. Settie disappeared, and despite diligent efforts, she could not be found. The RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance, ordered its publication, and directed a social case study. On December 1, 2017, the petition was read in open court, and no opposition was filed.
RTC’s Decision and Aftermath
On May 18, 2018, the RTC granted the petition. However, on June 6, 2018, the respondents (Jose's children) filed an Entry of Appearance, which the RTC denied, stating they were not parties of record. On July 17, 2018, the respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing they are indispensable parties whose consent was necessary. The RTC later granted their motion, vacated the decision, and issued summons to the respondents, ruling that they are indispensable parties in an adoption case.
Court of Appeals’ Decision
The CA upheld the RTC’s ruling, stating that the RTC’s decision was void due to lack of jurisdiction. The respondents, as indispensable parties, were not served summons. The CA also found the Affidavit of Consent allegedly signed by the respondents to be not genuine.
Issue:
- Did the CA err in affirming the RTC’s ruling that the respondents are indispensable parties?
- Did the CA err in ruling that the Affidavit of Consent executed by the respondents is not genuine?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the CA did not commit reversible error. The Court emphasized that the respondents, as legitimate children of the adopter, are indispensable parties whose consent is required under Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8552. The Court also agreed with the CA’s finding that the Affidavit of Consent was not genuine.
Ratio:
- Indispensable Parties and Jurisdiction: The legitimate children of the adopter are indispensable parties in adoption proceedings. Their personal service of summons is necessary to protect their substantive rights. Failure to do so renders the judgment void.
- Immutability of Judgments: The doctrine of immutability of judgments does not apply to void judgments. A void judgment never attains finality and produces no legal effect.
- Genuineness of Affidavit of Consent: The CA’s finding that the Affidavit of Consent was not genuine was based on discrepancies in the notarial register, which the Supreme Court upheld.
- Applicability of R.A. No. 11642: The Court noted the passage of R.A. No. 11642, which streamlines adoption proceedings into an administrative process, but its applicability to the case was unclear from the records.