G.R. No. L-3717 - Velasco vs. Masa

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-3717)

Antecedent Facts and Procedural Posture

The petitioners, long-term residents and gainfully employed in the Philippines (since 2007 and 2009 respectively), filed a Petition for Adoption with Change of Name for Innah Alegado, a minor rescued as an infant in Cagayan. They first obtained care and custody through DSWD's Pre-Adoption Placement authority. Petitioners had previously successfully adopted another child through domestic adoption. The DSWD processed their adoption application and issued an Affidavit of Consent, directing petitioners to file for domestic adoption within 30 days.

RTC's Classification of Petition as Inter-Country Adoption

The RTC, presided by Judge Liwanag, issued an order classifying the petition as a proper case for inter-country adoption due to petitioners’ foreign citizenship and directed transmittal of the case records to the Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB). This was based on Section 32 of the Rules on Adoption and the Amended Implementing Rules on Inter-Country Adoption, obliging the court to refer adoption petitions involving foreigners to the ICAB for appropriate action. The RTC’s order was considered a case disposal and subsequent motions for reconsideration by petitioners were denied.

Petitioners’ Challenge and Court of Appeals Dismissal

Petitioners filed a Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration citing a Supreme Court-ICAB agreement and DSWD memorandum which recognized that foreigners habitually residing in the Philippines might be exempted from inter-country adoption procedures and allowed domestic adoption to proceed. The RTC denied this motion as a prohibited pleading. The petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. The CA dismissed the petition for being filed out of time, holding the 60-day period ran from the first denial of motion for reconsideration, and subsequent motions did not extend this period. A motion for reconsideration to the CA was similarly denied.

Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was tasked to review:

Whether the dismissal by the CA of the Petition for Certiorari was correct based on timeliness.
Whether the RTC erred and committed grave abuse of discretion by referring the adoption petition to ICAB, effectively classifying it as inter-country adoption, when petitioners qualified and filed under the Domestic Adoption Act.
Whether procedural technicalities should be relaxed to favor the best interest of the child.
Whether substantial compliance with home study and certification requirements suffices, despite procedural lapses.
The appropriate legal framework for interpreting adoption laws with respect to foreigners habitually residing in the Philippines.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Procedural Timeliness

The Court found that the trial court’s order referring the case to ICAB was interlocutory rather than final. The petitioners’ second motion for reconsideration was based on new facts—a supervening event represented by the Supreme Court-ICAB agreement and DSWD memorandum—and was, therefore, not a mere rehash. Consequently, the 60-day period to file the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 should have counted from receipt of the order denying the second motion for reconsideration. The Court underscored the principle of relaxing procedural rules to prevent injustice and promote the best interests of the child, citing jurisprudence that supports balancing procedural efficiency against substantive justice.

Jurisdiction and Proper Classification of the Adoption Petition

The Supreme Court examined the distinction between the Domestic Adoption Act and the Inter-Country Adoption Act:

The Domestic Adoption Act applies to aliens who have resided continuously for at least three years in the Philippines and allows Family Courts or RTCs to exercise jurisdiction.
The Inter-Country Adoption Act applies to aliens permanently residing abroad and prescribes filing with ICAB or Family Courts with ICAB oversight.

Since petitioners have resided and worked in the Philippines for more than three continuous years, their petition for adoption properly falls under the Domestic Adoption Act and within the jurisdiction of the RTC/Family Court. The classification as inter-country adoption was, therefore, erroneous and prejudicial as it disrupted proceedings and imposed unnecessary procedural obstacles. Additionally, the Court took judicial notice of the Supreme Court–ICAB memorandum, which facilitates domestic adoption by foreigners habitually residing in the Philippines.

Impact of Referral to ICAB and Child’s Best Interest

Referral of the case to ICAB would cause needless delays, as the Board would likely manifest to the court to allow domestic adoption to proceed considering petitioners’ residency and compliance efforts, effectively returning the case to the RTC. The child Innah had lived with the petitioners for six years and recognized them as her parents, underscoring the urgency to resolve adoption on substantive merits rather than procedural technicalities.

Liberal Construction of Adoption Laws and Paramountcy of Child Welfare

The Supreme Court reiterated established doctrine that adoption laws must be liberally construed to advance the best interests and welfare of the child, which are paramount considerations. Procedural technicalities should not impede just outcomes especially where they result in injustice or delay. The Court invoked Article 10 of the New Civil Code to emphasize that in doubtful cases laws should be interpreted to uphold right and justice.

Supreme Court’s Final Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition for review, reversed and set aside the CA Resolutions dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being filed out of

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-3717)

Background and Procedural History

Petitioners, Spouses Joon Hyung Park and Kyung Ah Lee, American citizens residing in Makati City, Philippines, filed a Petition for Adoption with Change of Name involving the minor "Mayca Alegado," also known as "Innah Alegado."
The adoption case was docketed as Sp. Proc. Case No. R-MKT-16-01300-SP and raffled to Branch 136 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, presided by Respondent Judge Rico Sebastian D. Liwanag.
Petitioners have been residing in the Philippines since 2007 (Park) and 2009 (Lee), respectively, and have long-standing employment: Park as President of PEZA-located corporations and Lee as Senior Adviser at Banco De Oro's Korean Desk.
The child "Innah Alegado" was rescued as a minor trafficking victim 22 days after birth and placed in the care of petitioners on January 18, 2014, via DSWD’s Pre-Adoption Placement Authority.
Petitioners have also adopted another Filipino child through domestic adoption, showing prior engagement with adoption processes.
The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) issued an Affidavit of Consent for the adoption on May 30, 2016, instructing petitioners to file a petition within 30 days.
The trial court initially treated petitioners’ adoption petition as a case of inter-country adoption due to their foreign citizenship, leading to the transmittal of the case records to the Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB) per Section 32 of the Rules on Adoption and relevant rules.

Issues Raised by the Petitioners

Petitioners challenged the trial court’s classification of their case as inter-country adoption on the grounds that they have been residing continuously in the Philippines for over three years as required under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998.
They claimed the referral to ICAB was improper and questioned the interpretation of jurisdiction and venue under the domestic adoption laws versus inter-country adoption laws.
Petitioners argued that procedural rulings, including dismissal for alleged untimeliness of their Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, were erroneous.
They requested the Supreme Court to review the matter with relaxation of procedural rules to promote the best interests of the child.
Petitioners also invoked the doctrine of liberal construction of adoption laws, emphasizing the primacy of the welfare of the child.

Trial Court’s Rulings

The RTC ruled that the petitioners’ case was correctly classified as inter-country adoption given the petitioners’ citizenship, suspending the domestic adoption proceedings and transmitting the case to the ICAB.
The RTC denied petitioners’ motions for reconsideration to revisit the case classification and refused approval of additional procedural steps petitioner sought.
The respondent judge denied petitioners' second motion for reconsideration on the ground that it was a prohibited pleading under procedural rules.

Court of Appeals’ Decisions

The petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals to challenge the RTC’s rulings.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari as filed out of time, counting the 60-day period from the denial of the first motion for reconsideration, not from the denial of the second motion.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration with the CA was denied, prompting the present petition for review on certior