G.R. No. L-20089 - Wassmer vs. Velez

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-20089)

Trial Court Proceedings and RTC Order Transmitting the Case to ICAB

Petition for Adoption with Change of Name was filed in RTC Makati, Branch 136. On September 11, 2017, respondent judge found that because petitioners are foreigners the petition constituted a proper case of inter‑country adoption and ordered transmittal of the petition and annexes to the ICAB for appropriate action pursuant to Section 32 of the Rule on Adoption and Section 30 of the Amended Implementing Rules on Inter‑Country Adoption. The RTC characterized that Order as a “case disposal” and cancelled scheduled settings.

Motions for Reconsideration Filed in the RTC and Subsequent Orders

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated October 6, 2017 seeking reconsideration of the September 11, 2017 Order, time to confer with ICAB and to submit a best interest assessment, and allowance to proceed with deposition by written interrogatories. The RTC denied that First Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated June 19, 2018 (received by petitioners on July 2, 2018). Petitioners thereafter filed a Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration (filed July 4, 2018) invoking a newly discovered development: a DSWD memorandum (dated June 1, 2018) that reflected an agreement between the Supreme Court and ICAB concerning foreigners habitually residing in the Philippines and the procedures to permit domestic adoption where foreign adoption agencies/embassies cannot issue required documents. Petitioners asked for 30 days to secure necessary certifications. The RTC denied the second motion on July 10, 2018 as a prohibited pleading; petitioners received that denial on July 19, 2018.

CA Petition for Certiorari and Grounds for Dismissal as Filed Out of Time

Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA on September 12, 2018, assailing the RTC Orders of September 11, 2017, June 19, 2018, and July 10, 2018. The CA, in a Resolution dated November 21, 2018, dismissed the Rule 65 petition as filed out of time. The CA’s reasoning was that the 60‑day period under Section 4, Rule 65 begins to run from receipt of the order denying the first Motion for Reconsideration (received July 2, 2018), giving a deadline of August 31, 2018, whereas petitioners instead filed a second motion for reconsideration and only filed the certiorari petition after denial of that second motion—therefore beyond the 60‑day limit.

Petitioners’ Arguments on Timeliness and Nature of the RTC Order

Petitioners contended that (a) the RTC Order referring the case to ICAB was interlocutory rather than final and therefore a second Motion for Reconsideration was permissible, (b) the second motion raised a supervening event (the DSWD memorandum reflecting the Supreme Court–ICAB agreement) and was not a mere rehash of prior arguments, and (c) counting the 60‑day period from receipt of the denial of the second motion (received July 19, 2018) made their September 12, 2018 filing timely (within the 60 days ending September 17, 2018).

Supreme Court’s Approach to Procedural Relaxation and Best Interest of the Child

The Supreme Court granted the Rule 45 petition, emphasizing that procedural rules may be relaxed where strict application would frustrate justice and cause grave injustice. Citing its own precedents (e.g., Heirs of Deleste; Sta. Ana v. Spouses Carpo; Tanenglian v. Lorenzo), the Court reiterated its power to suspend or relax procedural requirements in extraordinary circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Court found petitioners did not sleep on their rights: they actively pursued certification from foreign adoption authorities and filed a second motion to present the supervening development, efforts aimed at assisting rather than delaying the disposition of the adoption matter. The Court therefore applied a liberal, justice‑promoting approach given the paramount concern for the welfare of the child.

Legal Analysis on Whether the RTC Order Was Final or Interlocutory

The Supreme Court treated the RTC’s transmittal order as having the practical effect of displacing the domestic adoption process to the ICAB, which could cause delay and may not ultimately obviate the need for domestic proceedings. Given the DSWD–ICAB–Supreme Court agreement indicating that ICAB may manifest to allow domestic adoption to proceed where foreign adoption agencies cannot provide required certifications, referral to ICAB carried the risk of needless delay and possible duplication of proceedings. The Court therefore found justification for not rigidly penalizing petitioners’ tactical pursuit of the certification via a second motion for reconsideration.

Comparative Statutory Framework: Domestic vs Inter‑Country Adoption (Court’s Findings)

The Court reviewed the Domestic Adoption Act (R.A. No. 8552 and Rule on Adoption) and the Inter‑Country Adoption Act (R.A. No. 8043 and Rules) and highlighted key distinctions utilized by the RTC and the parties:

Domestic Adoption: permits aliens to adopt if they have lived in the Philippines continuously for at least three years prior to filing, are certified by their diplomatic/consular office regarding legal capacity to adopt, and if their government allows the adoptee to enter as an adopted child; venue lies in the Family Court of the province or city where prospective adoptive parents reside.
Inter‑Country Adoption: applies to aliens or Filipinos permanently residing abroad and sets procedural requirements involving the ICAB and central authorities or accredited foreign adoption agencies.
Applying these provisions, the Supreme Court noted petitioners’ continuous Philippine residence (since 2007 and 2009), thus satisfying the three‑year residency requirement under domestic adoption law and supporting the conclusion that the petition was properly filed under the Domestic Adoption Act.

Practical Considerations on Delay, Evidentiary Posture, and Best Interests

The Court observed that petitioners had already taken significant steps to compile evidence relevant to adoption and immigration—authenticated California laws, U.S. immigration laws, and a deposition of an expert (Ms. Tifany Markee) by written interrogatories—demonstrating readiness to present a full evidentiary case in the RTC to establish eligibility and to protect the child’s best interests. The Court reiterated the settled principle that adoption statutes should be liberally construed to promote the welfare of the child, emphasizing that delay caused by an unnecessary referral to ICAB would prejudice the adoptee and the petitioners.

Reliance on Administrative Agreement Between Supreme Court and ICAB and DSWD Memorandum

The Court took cognizance of the Ju

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-20089)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported citation: 866 Phil. 920; 117 OG No. 9, 2565 (March 1, 2021), Second Division; G.R. No. 248035, November 27, 2019.
Nature of case before the Supreme Court: Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution dated November 21, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 157452 (which dismissed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari as filed out of time) and the CA Resolution dated June 19, 2019 denying a Motion for Reconsideration.
Relief prayed before the Supreme Court: Remand the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for continuation of adoption proceedings.
Author of the Supreme Court resolution: Justice Hernando (R E S O L U T I O N).
Disposition by the Supreme Court: Petition granted; CA Resolutions dated November 21, 2018 and June 19, 2019 reversed and set aside; case remanded to RTC Makati City, Branch 136 to continue with dispatch the adoption proceedings (change of name) concerning the minor “Mayca Alegado” a.k.a. “Innah Alegado.”
Concurrence: Perlas‑Bernabe, Reyes, Jr. A., Inting and Zalameda, JJ., concur. (Zalameda designated additional member per Special Order No. 2727 dated October 25, 2019.)

Antecedent Facts — Parties and Child

Petitioners: Spouses Joon Hyung Park and Kyung Ah Lee, American citizens residing in Makati City, Philippines.
Length and nature of residence and employment in the Philippines: Petitioner Park residing since 2007 and employed as President of two PEZA‑located corporations (Wyntron, Inc. and Danam Philippines, Inc.); petitioner Lee residing since 2009 and employed as Senior Adviser of Banco De Oro’s (BDO’s) Korean Desk.
Adoptee: Minor “Mayca Alegado” a.k.a. “Innah Alegado” (Innah), born December 13, 2012 in Tuguegarao City.
Early circumstances: Innah was rescued at about 22 days old from trafficking and referred to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Field Office in Cagayan after her biological mother attempted to give her away in exchange for transportation fare.
Placement: On January 18, 2014, DSWD bestowed care and custody of Innah upon petitioners via a Pre‑Adoption Placement Authority.
Related adoption history: Petitioners previously adopted another girl, Hannah, by domestic adoption. The RTC Makati City, Branch 144 granted Hannah’s adoption on August 30, 2016. Hannah is an older companion to Innah.
DSWD action on petitioners’ adoption application: The DSWD processed petitioners’ application and on May 30, 2016 issued an Affidavit of Consent instructing petitioners to file a petition for domestic adoption, advising that the prospective adoptive parents shall initiate judicial proceedings by filing the petition not later than 30 days from receipt of the DSWD’s written consent.

Trial Court Proceedings and Orders (RTC, Branch 136)

Initial filing: Petition for Adoption with Change of Name of minor Innah docketed as Sp. Proc. Case No. R‑MKT‑16‑01300‑SP, raffled to RTC Makati City, Branch 136, presided over by respondent Judge Rico Sebastian D. Liwanag.
RTC Order of September 11, 2017: The RTC found that because petitioners are both foreigners, the petition presented a proper case of inter‑country adoption rather than domestic adoption, and pursuant to Section 32 of the Rule on Adoption and Section 30 of the Amended Implementing Rules and Regulations on Inter‑Country Adoption, directed the transmittal of a copy of the petition and annexes to the Inter‑Country Adoption Board (ICAB) for appropriate action; the Order declared that it amounts to a case disposal and cancelled the October 27 and November 24, 2017 settings.
Petitioners’ procedural responses at the RTC:
- October 6, 2017: Filed a Motion for Reconsideration (First Motion for Reconsideration) asking the RTC to set aside the September 11, 2017 Order, allow time to confer with ICAB and submit a best interest assessment, and allow the Deposition through Written Interrogatories to proceed.
- June 19, 2018: RTC denied the First Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners received a copy of the denial on July 2, 2018.
- July 4, 2018: Petitioners filed a Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration, asserting a supervening event — an agreement between the Supreme Court and ICAB as reflected in a DSWD Memorandum dated June 1, 2018 regarding treatment of foreigners habitually residing in the Philippines — and prayed for 30 days from notice to secure necessary certifications from foreign adoption agencies/embassies.
- July 10, 2018: RTC denied the Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration as a prohibited pleading. Petitioners received a copy of this Order on July 19, 2018.
Petitioners’ calculation of appellate deadline: Petitioners noted that they had 60 days from receipt of the RTC’s denial (interpreting receipt as July 19, 2018) to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which would extend until September 17, 2018.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Rationale

Filing with CA: Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on September 12, 2018, assailing the RTC Orders dated September 11, 2017; June 19, 2018; and July 10, 2018.
CA Resolution dated November 21, 2018: CA dismissed the petition for certiorari as filed out of time.
- CA’s computation and reasoning: The CA held that petitioners received the June 19, 2018 Order denying their First Motion for Reconsideration on July 2, 2018; under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the 60‑day period to file certiorari should be counted from July 2, 2018 (thus until August 31, 2018). Petitioners instead filed a Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration; after denial of the second motion they initiated certiorari, but the petition filed on September 12, 2018 was beyond the 60‑day period, hence the CA dismissed it.
Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration before CA: Petitioners argued the referral to ICAB was interlocutory, permitting a second motion for reconsideration and therefore their certiorari should be counted from receipt of the denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration.
CA Resolution dated June 19, 2019: Denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of the November 21, 2018 dismissal.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

Timeliness: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari as filed out of time and whether a relaxation of procedural rules was warranted so that the petition could be resolved on the merits.
Point of computation for the 60‑day period under Rule 65: Whether the period should be counted from the receipt of the denial of the First Motion for Reconsideration (July 2, 2018) or from the receipt of the denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration (July 19, 2018).
Jurisdictional and substantive issue: Whether respondent RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion in referring the Petition for Adoption to ICAB — i.e., whether the Petition for Adoption was properly filed under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 rather than being an inter‑country adoption case.
Requirements for adoption: Whether substantial compliance with Home Study and certification requirements is sufficient because such requirements are not jurisdictional.
Statutory construction: Whether adoption laws should be construed liberally to promote the best interest of the child.

Legal Authorities, Statutes, Rules and Administrative Instruments Invoked

Rules of Court: Rule 45 (Petition for Review on Certiorari), Rule 65 (Certiorari and 60‑day period), Rule 37 Section 5 (prohibition on second motion for reconsideration where applicable).
Rule on Adoption (A.M. No. 02‑6‑02‑SC, August 22, 2002): Section 32 (Duty of Court — transmittal to ICAB when petition is proper for inter‑country adoption); Section 6 (Venue for domestic adoption).
Amended Implementing Rules and Regulations on Inter‑Country Adoption: Section