Spouses Park vs. Liwanag

Facts:

Petitioners Spouses Joon Hyung Park and Kyung Ah Lee (American citizens habitually residing in Makati City) filed a Petition for Adoption with Change of Name for the minor Mayca Alegado a.k.a. Innah Alegado before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 136, presided by Hon. Rico Sebastian D. Liwanag. The child was rescued shortly after birth and placed by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) under petitioners' care through a Pre-Adoption Placement Authority dated January 18, 2014; the DSWD issued an Affidavit of Consent on May 30, 2016 instructing petitioners to file a petition for domestic adoption within 30 days of receipt.

On September 11, 2017, respondent Judge issued an Order finding that because both petitioners are foreigners the petition presented a proper case for inter‑country adoption and, citing Section 32 of the Rule on Adoption (A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC), directed that a certified copy of the petition and annexes be transmitted to the Inter‑Country Adoption Board (ICAB) for appropriate action. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration (First Motion) on October 6, 2017, which the RTC denied in an Order dated June 19, 2018; petitioners received that denial on July 2, 2018.

Petitioners filed a Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration on July 4, 2018, asserting a supervening event: a June 1, 2018 DSWD memorandum (incorporating an agreement between the Supreme Court and the ICAB) that addressed foreigners habitually residing in the Philippines and directing certification procedures that could permit continuation of domestic adoption. The RTC denied the Second Motion as a prohibited pleading in an Order dated July 10, 2018 (received July 19, 2018). Believing they had 60 days from receipt of the July 10 Order to seek relief, petitioners instead filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) on September 12, 2018, assailing the RTC Orders of September 11, 2017, June 19, 2018, and July 10, 2018.

The CA, however, dismissed the Rule 65 petition in a November 21, 2018 Resolution for being filed out of time, finding that the 60‑day period to seek certiorari ran from receipt of the denial of the First Motion for Reconsideration (July 2, 2018) and not from the denial of the second motion; a motion for reconsideration was not available from what the CA treated as a case-dispositive order. Petitioners...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Procedural: Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the Rule 65 petition as filed out of time—i.e., should the 60‑day period have been measured from receipt of the denial of the First Motion for Reconsideration or from receipt of the denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration (or otherwise excused by the Court)?

• Substantive/Jurisdictional: Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion by directing transmission of the petition to the ICAB (treating the petition as an inter‑country adoption) when petitioners allege they qualify for domestic adoption und...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)