G.R. No. 264146 - Bagcat-Gullas vs. Gullas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 264146)

Petitioner

Nena Bagcat‑Gullas filed, together with her husband Jose, a Petition for Adoption and Correction of Entries in the birth record of Jo Anne Maria Ariraya. The petition alleged that the minor and her biological mother had been living with the petitioners and that the biological mother subsequently left the child.

Respondents

The respondents are the legitimate children of Jose. They later challenged the adoption proceedings, asserting that as legitimate children of an adopter they were indispensable parties whose consent and personal service of summons were required by law.

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Petition for adoption filed: May 5, 2016 (docketed as SP Proc. No. R‑CEB‑16‑02302‑SP).
RTC order setting hearing and directing publication and notices: October 24, 2017; hearing held December 1, 2017.
RTC Decision granting adoption: May 18, 2018; Certificate of Finality: July 16, 2018 (stated to be final and executory July 4, 2018).
Respondents’ counsel entry of appearance and subsequent motions: June–July 2018.
RTC vacated its decision and issued summons to respondents: October 3, 2018; denied reconsideration November 21, 2018.
Petition for certiorari to CA and CA denial (with reasons): CA Decision June 22, 2021; Resolution September 6, 2022.
Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court and final resolution: Petition denied (Supreme Court decision affirmed CA).

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary statutory law relied upon: Republic Act No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998), specifically Section 9(c) requiring the written consent of the legitimate and adopted sons/daughters, ten years of age or over, of the adopter(s) and adoptee. Subsequent statutory development noted: Republic Act No. 11642 (Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act of 2022), including creation of the National Authority for Child Care (NACC) and provisions permitting withdrawal of pending judicial domestic adoption petitions. Constitutional basis for judicial review: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered in 2023; therefore the 1987 Constitution governs).

Facts Relevant to Jurisdiction and Notice

The RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance, ordered publication and service of copies to various offices, and conducted a hearing where the petition was read in open court and no one objected. The respondents later appeared and contended they were indispensable parties who were not personally served with summons. The petitioners submitted an Affidavit of Consent allegedly signed by the respondents; the CA questioned the genuineness of that affidavit after inspection of the notarial register.

RTC Rulings and Orders

The RTC initially granted the adoption (May 18, 2018) and thereafter issued a Certificate of Finality. After the respondents filed an Entry of Appearance and challenged their non‑impleading and lack of personal service, the RTC concluded that the children of the adopter are indispensable parties in an adoption petition. The RTC vacated its prior decision, set aside the Certificate of Finality, reinstated the case, and ordered issuance of summons to the respondents. The RTC denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, reasoning that the prior judgment was void for lack of service on indispensable parties.

CA Ruling and Reasoning

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari and refused injunctive relief as moot and academic. It held that under R.A. No. 8552 the legitimate children of an adopter are indispensable parties whose written consent (if aged ten or over) is required. The CA scrutinized the Affidavit of Consent proffered by the petitioners and, upon inspection of the notarial register, found indications that the affidavit did not appear genuine; consequently it concluded the trial court lacked jurisdiction because personal service on indispensable parties had not been effected. The CA also applied the principle that a void judgment is not protected by the doctrine of immutability of judgments.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s ruling that the RTC lacked jurisdiction and that the earlier adoption decree was void for failure to personally serve summons upon the adopter’s legitimate children; and 2) whether the CA erred in ruling that the Affidavit of Consent executed by the respondents was not genuine.

Standard of Review Emphasized by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that under Rule 45 its function is limited to reviewing errors of law, not to re‑weigh factual findings. Issues that require re‑examination of evidence or resolution of factual disputes are treated as questions of fact, to which appellate courts (and ultimately the Supreme Court in Rule 45 review) give deference to trial court and CA factual findings. The petition was therefore vulnerable to dismissal to the extent it raised substantially factual issues.

Statutory Requirement of Consent and Indispensability

The Court emphasized Section 9(c) of R.A. No. 8552: the written consent of the adopter’s legitimate children aged ten years or over is required for the adoption to be valid. The Court agreed with precedent that such consent ensures harmony among prospective siblings and protects substantive rights, including notice that legitimes and parental love will be shared. Personal service of summons on the spouse and all legitimate children is required to vest jurisdiction; constructive notice or reliance on procedural technicalities is insufficient.

Affidavit of Consent and Jurisdictional Consequence

The CA found the Affidavit of Consent proffered by the petitioners to be of doubtful genuineness after comparing notarial register entries; the Supreme Court declined to substitute its factual assessment for the CA’s. Because the legitimacy of the affidavit was in question and personal service of summons on the respondents was not shown, the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 264146)

Nature of the Case and Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Nena Bagcat‑Gullas (Bagcat‑Gullas), assailing:
- Decision dated June 22, 2021, and
- Resolution dated September 6, 2022, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 12402.
The CA affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling that the doctrine of immutability of judgments did not apply because the challenged judgment was void for lack of summons served upon the children of the adopter, who were indispensable parties.
The Supreme Court (Third Division) docketed the case as G.R. No. 264146 and rendered decision on August 7, 2023, with Justice Singh authoring the opinion; Justices Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao concurred.

Facts

On May 5, 2016, Bagcat‑Gullas and her husband Jose R. Gullas filed a Petition for Adoption and Correction of Entries in the Birth Record concerning minor Jo Anne Maria Ariraya (Jo Anne).
The petition was raffled to the RTC, Branch 24, Cebu City, docketed as SP Proc. No. R‑CEB‑16‑02302‑SP.
Jo Anne’s biological mother: Settie Asiah Ariraya (Settie); Jo Anne had no known father.
Settie and Jo Anne lived in the home of Bagcat‑Gullas and Jose; Bagcat‑Gullas and Jose financially supported Settie and Jo Anne because Settie had no source of income.
For unknown reasons, Settie left Jo Anne and never returned; Bagcat‑Gullas and Jose made diligent efforts to find Settie but failed; thereafter they provided for Jo Anne and treated her as their own child.

Initial RTC Proceedings and Pre‑Judgment Orders

October 24, 2017 RTC Order:
- Found petition sufficient in form and substance;
- Set hearing for December 1, 2017;
- Ordered publication of the Order once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the cities and Province of Cebu;
- Directed that copies of the Petition and the Order be furnished to the Solicitor General, Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City, Regional Director of DSWD Cebu City, and the RTC Social Worker;
- Directed RTC Social Worker to conduct social case study on Jose and Bagcat‑Gullas, the minor, and the minor’s biological parents.
December 1, 2017 hearing:
- Petition was read thrice in open court;
- No person objected or filed opposition.

RTC Decision Granting Adoption and Subsequent Filings

RTC Decision dated May 18, 2018 granted the Petition for Adoption.
June 6, 2018: Wee Lim and Salas Law Firm filed an Entry of Appearance for respondents Joselito F. Gullas, Joie Marie F. Gullas Yu, and John Vicente F. Gullas — the legitimate children of Jose.
June 8, 2018 RTC Ruling: Entry of Appearance held to be without basis because respondents were not parties of record.
July 16, 2018 Certificate of Finality: RTC stated Decision dated May 18, 2018 became final and executory on July 4, 2018.

Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration and Petitioner’s Opposition

July 17, 2018 respondents filed Motion for Reconsideration, asserting:
- As legitimate children of Jose, they are real parties in interest and indispensable parties;
- Their consent to the adoption was necessary.
August 20, 2018 Bagcat‑Gullas and Jose filed Comment Ad Cautelam in opposition, arguing:
- Respondents were not indispensable parties; and
- Respondents had executed an Affidavit of Consent signifying knowledge of and consent to the adoption.

RTC’s Subsequent Orders Vacating Decision and Finding Lack of Jurisdiction

October 3, 2018 RTC Order:
- Granted respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration and Formal Entry of Appearance;
- Vacated the May 18, 2018 Decision and set aside the July 16, 2018 Certificate of Finality;
- Reinstated the case on the docket and issued summons to be served upon the respondents;
- Ruled that children of the adopter are indispensable parties in a petition for adoption, that personal service of summons upon them is necessary to protect substantive rights, and that without such service the subsequent judgment is null and void.
Bagcat‑Gullas and Jose filed a Motion for Reconsideration; respondents opposed.
November 21, 2018 RTC Order:
- Denied the Motion for Reconsideration;
- Reiterated that the immutability of judgments rule does not apply because the judgment is void for want of service of summons on indispensable parties (the adopter’s children).

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

Bagcat‑Gullas and Jose filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the CA.
The CA denied the Petition for Certiorari and denied the prayer for injunctive relief as moot and academic.
CA’s key holdings:
- Cited R.A. No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998): legitimate children of the adopter are indispensable parties; their consent i
...continue reading