Spouses Park vs. Liwanag

Factual Background

The adoptee, a female child called Mayca Alegado a.k.a. Innah Alegado, was born December 13, 2012 in Tuguegarao City and was rescued at twenty-two days old and turned over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development. The DSWD granted petitioners care and custody through a Pre-Adoption Placement Authority dated January 18, 2014. Petitioners previously obtained a domestic adoption decree for another child, Hannah, from the RTC of Makati City, Branch 144. The DSWD issued an Affidavit of Consent on May 30, 2016 instructing petitioners to file a petition for domestic adoption within thirty days of receipt of written consent.

Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioners filed a Petition for Adoption with change of name before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 136. In an Order dated September 11, 2017 the respondent Judge found that because petitioners are foreigners the petition constituted a proper case for inter-country adoption and directed transmittal of the petition and its annexes to the Inter-Country Adoption Board pursuant to Section 32 of the Rule on Adoption and Section 30 of the Amended Implementing Rules for inter-country adoption. That Order stated that it amounted to a case disposal and cancelled scheduled settings. Petitioners filed a First Motion for Reconsideration on October 6, 2017 seeking to set aside the referral, to be given time to confer with ICAB and to allow a deposition through written interrogatories. The First Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Order dated June 19, 2018. Petitioners received that Order on July 2, 2018.

Orders and Subsequent Pleadings in the RTC

On July 4, 2018 petitioners filed a Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration relying on a newly discovered supervening event, namely the DSWD Memorandum dated June 1, 2018 which incorporated agreements between the Supreme Court and ICAB and the guidance of OCA Circular 213-2017 regarding foreigners habitually residing in the Philippines. Petitioners sought additional time to secure the necessary certification from their foreign adoption agencies or embassies. The respondent Judge denied the Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated July 10, 2018 as a prohibited pleading. Petitioners received that Order on July 19, 2018.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

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. In a Resolution dated November 21, 2018 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for being filed out of time. The CA held that the sixty-day period under Section 4, Rule 65 ran from petitioners' receipt of the June 19, 2018 denial of the First Motion for Reconsideration on July 2, 2018 and therefore expired on August 31, 2018; the CA noted that petitioners had filed a second Motion for Reconsideration instead of immediately filing certiorari and that they only commenced the certiorari proceeding after denial of the second motion. Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the CA resolution, which the CA denied in a June 19, 2019 Resolution.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The case presented principally the following questions: whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Rule 65 petition as filed out of time, particularly whether the sixty-day period should be computed from the denial of the First Motion for Reconsideration or from the denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration; whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in directing transmittal of the petition to ICAB and thereby treating the petition as inter-country rather than domestic; and whether documentary and home-study certification requirements are jurisdictional so as to preclude domestic adoption when the prospective adoptive parents are habitually resident in the Philippines.

Petitioners' Principal Contentions

Petitioners contended that the RTC Order directing transmittal to ICAB was interlocutory and that their Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration raised a bona fide supervening event in the form of the DSWD Memorandum dated June 1, 2018 and OCA Circular 213-2017, which justified the additional pleading and tolled the time to file certiorari. They argued that they had not slept on their rights but had diligently attempted to secure certifications from their foreign adoption agencies and to obtain documentary proof of their qualifications under U.S. law, including authenticated California statutes and a written deposition of an expert in U.S. immigration and inter-country adoption, Ms. Tifany Markee. Petitioners further argued that they had been habitually residing in the Philippines for at least three continuous years and therefore their petition properly fell under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 and the appropriate Family Court or RTC could entertain the petition without transmittal to ICAB.

Respondent and Court of Appeals' Position

The respondent Judge treated petitioners as foreigners and, relying on Section 32 of the Rule on Adoption and the inter-country adoption rules, ordered immediate transmittal to the ICAB. The Court of Appeals treated the referral order and the denial of the First Motion for Reconsideration as final for purposes of computing the sixty-day period under Rule 65 and held that petitioners' subsequent filing of a second Motion for Reconsideration did not justify the delay in instituting certiorari. The CA therefore dismissed the certiorari petition on procedural grounds.

Supreme Court's Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated November 21, 2018 and June 19, 2019, and remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 136 with a directive to continue with dispatch the adoption proceedings and the change of name of the minor. The Court ordered the continuation of proceedings on the ground that relaxation of procedural rules was warranted to promote the best interest of the child and to avoid a prejudicial delay.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court found cause to relax strict procedural technicalities by invoking settled jurisprudence that rules of procedure are tools to facilitate justice and may be relaxed to prevent grave injustice, citing Heirs of Deleste v. Land Bank of the Phils., Sta. Ana v. Spouses Carpo, and Tanenglian v. Lorenzo. The Court observed that petitioners did not merely neglect their rights but actively sought compliance with the documentary requirements by filing the second Motion for Reconsideration to secure necessary certifications in light of the DSWD Memorandum dated June 1, 2018. Substantively, the Court compared the qualifications and venue provisions of the Domestic Adoption statutory and regulatory scheme with those of the Inter-Country Adoption Act and concluded that aliens who had been living in the Philippines for at least three continuous years prior to filing are qualified adopters under the Domestic Adoption Act and that venue lies with the Family Court or the RTC where the prospective adoptive parents reside pursuant to Section 6 of the Rule on Adoption and Section 28 of the rule on inter-country adoption. The Court further noted the agreement between the Supreme Court and ICAB reflected in the DSWD memorandum which anticipated that in circumstances w