A.M. No. P-05-2017 - Lopez vs. Ramos

Spouses Dr. Diosdado Lahom and Isabelita Lahom, unable to have children, took Isabelita's nephew, Jose Melvin Sibulo, into their care at age two and treated him as their own child.
After many years, the couple decided to legally adopt Jose Melvin.
On May 5, 1972, a court order granted the adoption petition, and his name was changed to Jose Melvin Lahom by the Civil Registrar of Naga City.

Many years later, specifically in December 1999, Mrs. Lahom filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, Naga City, to rescind the decree of adoption.
Grounds alleged by petitioner:

Respondent refused to change his surname from Sibulo to Lahom, despite the court order and repeated requests.
Respondent continued using the surname "Sibulo" in professional records and dealings, showing disregard for petitioner’s feelings.
Relationship between petitioner and respondent became strained; respondent was indifferent and only visited occasionally.
Respondent allegedly exhibited jealousy towards petitioner's nephews and nieces, suspecting them of seeking material benefits.
Petitioner suffered emotional distress, believing respondent's only motive was to claim rights over properties through the adoption.

Respondent opposed, moving for dismissal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and no cause of action, invoking Republic Act No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act), which had become effective on March 22, 1998.

R.A. No. 8552 eliminated the right of adopters to rescind an adoption but allowed adoptees to seek rescission under specific grounds.

Jurisdiction was proper under Section 5(c) of R.A. No. 8369, which designated the court as a Family Court.
Petitioner lacked cause of action because R.A. No. 8552 deleted the right of an adopter to rescind adoption.
Even if petitioner had the right under the old law, the petition was filed beyond the five-year prescriptive period under Rule 100 of the Rules of Court.

Whether an adoption decree granted before R.A. No. 8552 could still be rescinded by an adopter after the law’s effectivity.
Whether the adopter’s right to rescind had prescribed.

Adoption in history focused on rights of adopters, especially in Roman law for assuring male heirs.
The welfare and rights of the adopted child became emphasized only in the 20th century.
Philippine laws evolved from the Civil Code of 1950, Child and Youth Welfare Code, to the Family Code and finally to R.A. No. 8552 in 1998, reflecting a shift towards prioritizing the best interest of the adopted child.
R.A. No. 8552 expressly prohibits adopters from rescinding adoption decrees, granting this right only to adoptees under strict grounds.

Whether an adopter can still rescind or revoke an adoption decree granted prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552 after its passage.

If the adopter has the right to rescind, whether such right has prescribed considering the lapse of time before the filing of the petition.

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the petition to rescind the adoption decree.