Case Summary (G.R. No. 143989)
Grounds and allegations for rescission
In December 1999 Mrs. Lahom filed a petition to rescind the 1972 adoption decree. Her allegations included respondent’s refusal to permanently use the Lahom surname, respondent’s indifference and infrequent visits when petitioner needed care, respondent’s alleged motive of expecting rights over petitioner’s property (evidenced by respondent’s filing of a partition suit), and the alleged erosion of petitioner’s love and affection such that the adoption’s legal basis no longer existed.
Change in statutory law — R.A. No. 8552
Republic Act No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act), effective 22 March 1998, materially changed the law on rescission. Section 19 (Article VI) restricts rescission to petitions by the adoptee (with Department assistance if minor, or guardian/counsel if incapacitated) and lists limited grounds (physical/verbal maltreatment despite counseling; attempt on life of adoptee; sexual assault/violence; abandonment and failure to comply with parental obligations). The statute expressly provides that adoption shall not be subject to rescission by the adopter(s), though an adopter may disinherit the adoptee for causes provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code.
Procedural posture and trial court disposition
Respondent moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action under R.A. No. 8552. The trial court found it had jurisdiction (citing designation as Family Court) but held the petition lacked cause of action because R.A. No. 8552 had abrogated an adopter’s right to rescind. The court additionally observed that, even if petitioner’s prior right to rescind were assumed, the petition would be time-barred under Section 5, Rule 100 (five-year period) because petitioner knew of the asserted grounds more than five years before filing. The trial court ordered dismissal.
Issues presented on appeal
Petitioner sought review raising two principal questions: (1) Whether an adoption decreed on 05 May 1972 may still be revoked or rescinded by an adopter after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552; and (2) if rescission remains available, whether the adopter’s action has prescribed.
Historical and policy context cited by the Court
The Court reviewed the historical evolution of adoption law: Roman origins emphasizing adopter interests; later shifts in many legal systems toward protecting the child’s welfare; international instruments (e.g., Geneva Declaration, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN instruments, Convention on the Rights of the Child) and the Philippines’ statutory progression (Civil Code of 1950, Child and Youth Welfare Code/PD 603, Family Code, and R.A. No. 8552). The trend toward prioritizing the adopted child’s best interests informed the legislative design of R.A. No. 8552, which secures adopted children’s status and privileges and withdraws the adopter’s unilateral right to rescind.
Legal analysis on vested rights, retroactivity, and governing law
The Court reiterated the prevailing principle that jurisdiction and rights are governed by the law in force at the time an action is commenced. It discussed the concept of vested rights—present, fixed, and protected interests tied to due process under the 1987 Constitution—and cited precedents showing that when a statutory right or privilege is created, its availability depends on the governing law at the time of filing. Applying these principles and relevant authorities (including Republic v. Court of Appeals and Republic v. Miller as cited in the decision), the Court concluded that because petitioner commenced her rescission action after R.A. No. 8552 had become effective, the statutory change barring adopter-initiated rescission applied and petitioner could no longer pursue rescission.
Prescription and the conditional nature of the rescission remedy
The Court noted that even before R.A. No. 8552, the adopter’s remedy to rescind was subject to a five-year limitation under Rule 100, Section 5. The need to exercise the right within the prescriptive period is
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 143989)
Case Caption and Decision
- Citation: 453 Phil. 987, First Division, G.R. No. 143989, July 14, 2003.
- Parties: Isabelita S. Lahom (petitioner) v. Jose Melvin Sibulo (respondent; previously referred to as "Dr. Melvin S. Lahom").
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines, First Division.
- Ponente: Justice Vitug.
- Disposition: The assailed judgment of the court a quo is AFFIRMED. No costs. (Davide, Jr., C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.)
Factual Background
- Family and fostering facts:
- Isabelita and Dr. Diosdado Lahom took into their care Isabelita’s nephew, Jose Melvin Sibulo, and raised him as their own child from about age two.
- The spouses considered legal adoption for years and filed a petition for adoption in 1971.
- On 05 May 1972 an order granting the petition of adoption was issued.
- Pursuant to the court order, the Civil Registrar of Naga City changed the name "Jose Melvin Sibulo" to "Jose Melvin Lahom."
- Later developments and breakdown of relationship:
- Over the years respondent allegedly refused to change his surname from Sibulo to Lahom despite proddings and pleadings of the adopting spouses, causing frustration particularly for petitioner’s husband.
- Petitioner alleged respondent continued to use the surname "Sibulo" in professional dealings; Professional Regulation Commission records showed his name as Jose Melvin M. Sibulo, originally issued in 1978 and continuing to present.
- Petitioner, a widow living alone, alleged respondent manifested indifference and came to Naga only once a year; she required more care during frequent medical check-ups in Manila for a leg ailment in the last three or four years, times when respondent allegedly remained callous and indifferent.
- Petitioner alleged respondent manifested jealousy of petitioner’s nephews and nieces when they visited, claiming they sought material benefit; petitioner alleged respondent’s motive for adoption was expectancy of rights over petitioner’s properties, citing respondent’s filing of Civil Case No. 99-4463 for partition against petitioner.
- Petitioner claimed wounded feelings and that her love and affection for respondent were eroded, rendering the decree of adoption negated and without basis, hence the petition for revocation.
Procedural History
- Relevant dates and filings:
- Petition for adoption filed in 1971; decree of adoption issued on 05 May 1972.
- Republic Act No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act) took effect on 22 March 1998.
- Petitioner filed a petition to rescind the decree of adoption before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, of Naga City in December 1999 (petition filed December 1, 1999 as reflected in the trial court order).
- Motion to dismiss:
- Respondent moved to dismiss the petition principally on grounds that: (a) the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case; and (b) petitioner had no cause of action in view of R.A. No. 8552 which deleted the adopter’s right to rescind a decree of adoption.
- Trial court ruling (order dated 28 April 2000):
- Jurisdiction: The court held that Section 5(c) of R.A. No. 8369 conferred jurisdiction, the court having been designated a Family Court in A.M. No. 99-11-07 SC.
- Cause of action: Applying the sufficiency test of facts alleged in the complaint, the trial court observed that Section 19, Article VI of R.A. No. 8552 deleted the right of an adopter to rescind an adoption earlier granted under the Family Code and found that, on the face of the petition, there was a lack of cause of action.
- Prescription: The trial court, assuming arguendo petitioner were entitled to rescind, held that the right should have been exercised within the period allowed by the Rules. From the petition’s averments it appeared the legal grounds were known to petitioner for more than five (5) years prior to filing; thus, any action had prescribed under Section 5, Rule 100, Revised Rules of Court.
- Result: The trial court ordered dismissal of the petition.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the adoption decree dated 05 May 1972 may still be revoked or rescinded by an adopter after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552.
- If affirmative, whether the adopter’s action had prescribed.
Statutory and Doctrinal Provisions Cited
- Republic Act No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act), particularly Section 19, Article VI:
- Enumerates grounds where an adoptee may petition for rescission (a) repeated physical and verbal maltreatment despite counseling; (b) attempt on the life of the adoptee; (c) sexual assault or violence; (d) abandonment and failure to comply with parental obligations.
- Provides expressly: "Adoption, being in the best interest of the child, shall not be subject to rescission by the adopter(s). However, the adopter(s) may disinherit the adoptee for causes provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code."
- Former provisions:
- Article 348 (Civil Code): Grounds for adopter to petition for revocation (attempt against life, abandonment for more than three years, definite repudiation).
- Article 192 (P.D. No. 603 / Family Code): Grounds for adopters to petition for judicial rescission (acts constituting cause for disinheriting a descendant; abandonment of home during minority for at least one year or definite repudiation).
- Rule 100, Section 5, Revised Rules of Court:
- Time within which to file petition to set aside adop