3/30/2016

G.R.Nos.16899293

FIRSTDIVISION

INRE:PETITIONFORG.R.Nos.16899293
ADOPTIONOFMICHELLEP.
LIM,Present:
MONINAP.LIM,PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,
Petitioner.CARPIO,
xxCORONA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,and
INRE:PETITIONFORBERSAMIN,JJ.
ADOPTIONOFMICHAELJUDE
P.LIM,
Promulgated:
MONINAP.LIM,
Petitioner.May21,2009
xx

DECISION

CARPIO,J.:

TheCase

ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorarifiledbyMoninaP.Lim(petitioner)seekingtoset
[1]
asidetheDecision dated15September2004oftheRegionalTrialCourt,GeneralSantos
City, Branch 22 (trial court), in SPL. PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and 1259, which dismissed
without prejudice the consolidated petitions for adoption of Michelle P. Lim and Michael
JudeP.Lim.

TheFacts

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/16899293.htm

1/11

3/30/2016

G.R.Nos.16899293

Thefollowingfactsareundisputed.Petitionerisanoptometristbyprofession.On23June
1974, she married Primo Lim (Lim).They were childless. Minor children, whose parents
wereunknown,wereentrustedtothembyacertainLuciaAyuban(Ayuban).Beingsoeager
to have a child of their own, petitioner and Lim registered the children to make it appear
that they were the childrens parents. The children

[2]
were named Michelle P. Lim

(Michelle)andMichaelJudeP.Lim(Michael).Michellewasbarelyelevendaysoldwhen
[3]
broughttotheclinicofpetitioner.Shewasbornon15March1977. Michaelwas11days
[4]
oldwhenAyubanbroughthimtopetitionersclinic.Hisdateofbirthis1August1983.

The spouses reared and cared for the children as if they were their own. They sent the
children to exclusive schools. They used the surname Lim in all their school records and
documents. Unfortunately, on 28 November 1998, Lim died. On 27 December 2000,
petitionermarriedAngelOlario(Olario),anAmericancitizen.

[5]
Thereafter, petitioner decided to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty given
underRepublicActNo.8552

[6]
(RA8552)tothoseindividualswhosimulatedthebirthof

a child. Thus, on 24 April 2002, petitioner filed separate petitions for the adoption of
Michelle and Michael before the trial court docketed as SPL PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and
1259,respectively.Atthetimeofthefilingofthepetitionsforadoption,Michellewas25
yearsoldandalreadymarried,whileMichaelwas18yearsandsevenmonthsold.

Michelle and her husband gave their consent to the adoption as evidenced by their
[7]
Affidavits of Consent. Michael also gave his consent to his adoption as shown in his
[8]
Affidavit of Consent. Petitioners husband Olario likewise executed an Affidavit of
[9]
Consent fortheadoptionofMichelleandMichael.

IntheCertificationissuedbytheDepartmentofSocialWelfareandDevelopment(DSWD),
Michellewasconsideredasanabandonedchildandthewhereaboutsofhernaturalparents

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/16899293.htm

2/11

3/30/2016

G.R.Nos.16899293

[10]
[11]
wereunknown.
TheDSWDissuedasimilarCertificationforMichael.

TheRulingoftheTrialCourt
On15September2004,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentdismissingthepetitions.Thetrial
court ruled that since petitioner had remarried, petitioner should have filed the petition
jointlywithhernewhusband.Thetrialcourtruledthatjointadoptionbythehusbandand
the wife is mandatory citing Section 7(c),Article III of RA 8552 andArticle 185 of the
FamilyCode.

PetitionerfiledaMotionforReconsiderationofthedecisionbutthemotionwasdeniedin
theOrderdated16June2005.Indenyingthemotion,thetrialcourtruledthatpetitionerdid
notfallunderanyoftheexceptionsunderSection7(c),ArticleIIIofRA8552.Petitioners
argumentthatmereconsentofherhusbandwouldsufficewasuntenablebecause,underthe
law, there are additional requirements, such as residency and certification of his
qualification,whichthehusband,whowasnotevenmadeapartyinthiscase,mustcomply.

Astotheargumentthattheadopteesarealreadyemancipatedandjointadoptionismerely
forthejointexerciseofparentalauthority,thetrialcourtruledthatjointadoptionisnotonly
for the purpose of exercising parental authority because an emancipated child acquires
certainrightsfromhisparentsandassumescertainobligationsandresponsibilities.

Hence,thepresentpetition.

Issue

PetitionerappealeddirectlytothisCourtraisingthesoleissueofwhetherornotpetitioner,
whohasremarried,cansinglyadopt.

TheCourtsRuling

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/16899293.htm

3/11

3/30/2016

G.R.Nos.16899293

Petitionercontendsthattheruleonjointadoptionmustberelaxedbecauseitisthedutyof
the court and the State to protect the paramount interest and welfare of the child to be
adopted.Petitionerarguesthatthelegalmaximduralexsedlexisnotapplicabletoadoption
cases.Shearguesthatjointparentalauthorityisnotnecessaryinthiscasesince,atthetime
thepetitionswerefiled,Michellewas25yearsoldandalreadymarried,whileMichaelwas
already18yearsofage.Parentalauthorityisnotanymorenecessarysincetheyhavebeen
emancipatedhavingattainedtheageofmajority.

Wedenythepetition.

JointAdoptionbyHusbandandWife

Itisundisputedthat,atthetimethepetitionsforadoptionwerefiled,petitionerhadalready
remarried. She filed the petitions by herself, without being joined by her husband Olario.
Wehavenootherrecoursebuttoaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisiondenyingthepetitionsfor
adoption.Duralexsedlex.Thelawisexplicit.Section7,ArticleIIIofRA8552reads:

SEC.7.WhoMayAdopt.Thefollowingmayadopt:

(a)AnyFilipinocitizenoflegalage,inpossessionoffullcivilcapacityandlegalrights,of
good moral character, has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude,
emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years
olderthantheadoptee,andwhoisinapositiontosupportandcareforhis/herchildrenin
keeping with the means of the family. The requirement of sixteen (16) year difference
between the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived when the adopter is the
biologicalparentoftheadoptee,oristhespouseoftheadopteesparent
(b) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above stated for Filipino nationals:
Provided,Thathis/hercountryhasdiplomaticrelationswiththeRepublicofthePhilippines,
thathe/shehasbeenlivinginthePhilippinesforatleastthree(3)continuousyearspriorto
the filing of the application for adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption
decreeisentered,thathe/shehasbeencertifiedbyhis/herdiplomaticorconsularofficeor
any appropriate government agency that he/she has the legal capacity to adopt in his/her
country,andthathis/hergovernmentallowstheadopteetoenterhis/hercountryashis/her
adopted son/daughter: Provided, further, That the requirements on residency and
certification of the aliens qualification to adopt in his/her country may be waived for the
following:

(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4th)
degreeofconsanguinityoraffinityor

(ii)onewhoseekstoadoptthelegitimateson/daughterofhis/herFilipinospouseor

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/16899293.htm

4/11

3/30/2016

G.R.Nos.16899293

(iii)onewhoismarriedtoaFilipinocitizenandseekstoadoptjointlywithhis/her
spouse a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity of the
Filipinospousesor

(c) The guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the guardianship and
clearanceofhis/herfinancialaccountabilities.

Husbandandwifeshalljointlyadopt,exceptinthefollowingcases:

(i)ifonespouseseekstoadoptthelegitimateson/daughteroftheotheror

(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided,
however,Thattheotherspousehassignifiedhis/herconsenttheretoor

(iii)ifthespousesarelegallyseparatedfromeachother.

Incasehusbandandwifejointlyadopt,oronespouseadoptstheillegitimateson/daughterof
theother,jointparentalauthorityshallbeexercisedbythespouses.(Emphasissupplied)

The use of the word shall in the abovequoted provision means that joint adoption by the
husbandandthewifeismandatory.Thisisinconsonancewiththeconceptofjointparental
authorityoverthechildwhichistheidealsituation.Asthechildtobeadoptediselevatedto
thelevelofalegitimatechild,itisbutnaturaltorequirethespousestoadoptjointly.The
[12]
rulealsoinsuresharmonybetweenthespouses.

Thelawisclear.Thereisnoroomforambiguity.Petitioner,havingremarriedatthetimethe
petitionsforadoptionwerefiled,mustjointlyadopt.Sincethepetitionsforadoptionwere
filed only by petitioner herself, without joining her husband, Olario, the trial court was
correctindenyingthepetitionsforadoptiononthisground.
NeitherdoespetitionerfallunderanyofthethreeexceptionsenumeratedinSection7.First,
the children to be adopted are not the legitimate children of petitioner or of her husband
Olario. Second, the children are not the illegitimate children of petitioner. And third,
petitionerandOlarioarenotlegallyseparatedfromeachother.

ThefactthatOlariogavehisconsenttotheadoptionasshowninhisAffidavitofConsent
doesnotsuffice.TherearecertainrequirementsthatOlariomustcomplybeinganAmerican
citizen.HemustmeetthequalificationssetforthinSection7ofRA8552suchas:(1)he
must prove that his country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/16899293.htm

5/11

3/30/2016

G.R.Nos.16899293

(2)hemusthavebeenlivinginthePhilippinesforatleastthreecontinuousyearspriorto
the filing of the application for adoption (3) he must maintain such residency until the
adoptiondecreeisentered(4)hehaslegalcapacitytoadoptinhisowncountryand(5)the
adopteeisallowedtoentertheadopterscountryasthelattersadoptedchild.Noneofthese
qualificationswereshownandprovedduringthetrial.

Theserequirementsonresidencyandcertificationofthealiensqualificationtoadoptcannot
likewisebewaivedpursuanttoSection7.Thechildrenoradopteesarenotrelativeswithin
the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of petitioner or of Olario. Neither are the
adopteesthelegitimatechildrenofpetitioner.

EffectsofAdoption

Petitionercontendsthatjointparentalauthorityisnotanymorenecessarysincethechildren
havebeenemancipatedhavingreachedtheageofmajority.Thisisuntenable.

Parentalauthorityincludescaringforandrearingthechildrenforcivicconsciousnessand
efficiency and the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well
[13]
being.
The father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the
[14]
personsoftheircommonchildren.
Eventheremarriageofthesurvivingparentshallnot
affecttheparentalauthorityoverthechildren,unlessthecourtappointsanotherpersontobe
[15]
theguardianofthepersonorpropertyofthechildren.

Itistruethatwhenthechildreachestheageofemancipationthatis,whenheattainstheage
[16]
of majority or 18 years of age
emancipation terminates parental authority over the
personandpropertyofthechild,whoshallthenbequalifiedandresponsibleforallactsof
[17]
civillife.
However,parentalauthorityismerelyjustoneoftheeffectsoflegaladoption.
ArticleVofRA8552enumeratestheeffectsofadoption,thus:

ARTICLEV
EFFECTSOFADOPTION
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/16899293.htm

6/11

3/30/2016

G.R.Nos.16899293

SEC.16.ParentalAuthority.Exceptincaseswherethebiologicalparentisthespouseof
theadopter,alllegaltiesbetweenthebiologicalparent(s)andtheadopteeshallbesevered
andthesameshallthenbevestedontheadopter(s).
SEC.17.Legitimacy. The adoptee shall be considered the legitimate son/daughter of the
adopter(s)forallintentsandpurposesandassuchisentitledtoalltherightsandobligations
provided by law to legitimate sons/daughters born to them without discrimination of any
kind.Tothisend,theadopteeisentitledtolove,guidance,andsupportinkeepingwiththe
meansofthefamily.

SEC.18.Succession.Inlegalandintestatesuccession,theadopter(s)andtheadopteeshall
havereciprocalrightsofsuccessionwithoutdistinctionfromlegitimatefiliation.However,if
the adoptee and his/her biological parent(s) had left a will, the law on testamentary
successionshallgovern.

Adoption has, thus, the following effects: (1) sever all legal ties between the biological
parent(s)andtheadoptee,exceptwhenthebiologicalparentisthespouseoftheadopter(2)
deem the adoptee as a legitimate child of the adopter and (3) give adopter and adoptee
reciprocalrightsandobligationsarisingfromtherelationshipofparentandchild,including
butnotlimitedto:(i)therightoftheadoptertochoosethenamethechildistobeknown
and(ii)therightoftheadopterandadopteetobelegalandcompulsoryheirsofeachother.
[18]
Therefore, even if emancipation terminates parental authority, the adoptee is still
[19]
consideredalegitimatechildoftheadopterwithalltherights
ofalegitimatechildsuch
as:(1)tobearthesurnameofthefatherandthemother(2)toreceivesupportfromtheir
parentsand(3)tobeentitledtothelegitimeandothersuccessionalrights.Conversely,the
adoptive parents shall, with respect to the adopted child, enjoy all the benefits to which
[20]
[21]
[22]
biologicalparentsareentitled
suchassupport
andsuccessionalrights.

We are mindful of the fact that adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the
interests and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration.They are designed to
providehomes,parentalcareandeducationforunfortunate,needyororphanedchildrenand
give them the protection of society and family, as well as to allow childless couples or
personstoexperiencethejoysofparenthoodandgivethemlegallyachildinthepersonof
the adopted for the manifestation of their natural parental instincts. Every reasonable
intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate
[23]
[24]
objectivesofthelaw.
But,aswehaveruledinRepublicv.Vergara:

Wearenotunmindfulofthemainpurposeofadoptionstatutes,whichisthepromotionof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/16899293.htm

7/11

3/30/2016

G.R.Nos.16899293

thewelfareofthechildren.Accordingly,thelawshouldbeconstruedliberally,inamanner
that will sustain rather than defeat said purpose. The law must also be applied with
compassion,understandingandlessseverityinviewofthefactthatitisintendedtoprovide
homes,love,careandeducationforlessfortunatechildren.Regrettably,theCourtisnotina
positiontoaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisionfavoringadoptioninthecaseatbar,forthelawis
clear and it cannot be modified without violating the proscription against judicial
legislation. Until such time however, that the law on the matter is amended, we cannot
sustaintherespondentspousespetitionforadoption.(Emphasissupplied)

Petitioner, being married at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, should have
jointly filed the petitions with her husband. We cannot make our own legislation to suit
petitioner.

Petitioner, in her Memorandum, insists that subsequent events would show that joint
adoptioncouldnolongerbepossiblebecauseOlariohasfiledacasefordissolutionofhis
marriagetopetitionerintheLosAngelesSuperiorCourt.

We disagree. The filing of a case for dissolution of the marriage between petitioner and
Olarioisofnomoment.Itisnotequivalenttoadecreeofdissolutionofmarriage.Untiland
unlessthereisajudicialdecreeforthedissolutionofthemarriagebetweenpetitionerand
Olario,themarriagestillsubsists.Thatbeingthecase,jointadoptionbythehusbandandthe
wife is required. We reiterate our ruling above that since, at the time the petitions for
adoptionwerefiled,petitionerwasmarriedtoOlario,jointadoptionismandatory.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 15 September

2004oftheRegionalTrialCourt,GeneralSantosCity,Branch22inSPL.PROC.CaseNos.
1258and1259.Costsagainstpetitioner.

SOORDERED.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/16899293.htm

8/11

3/30/2016

G.R.Nos.16899293

AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

RENATOC.CORONATERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsinthe
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriter
oftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/16899293.htm

9/11

3/30/2016

G.R.Nos.16899293

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
PennedbyJudgeAntonioC.Lubao.RecordsofSPL.PROC.CaseNo.1258,pp.161162andSPL.PROC.CaseNo.1259,
pp.163164.
[2]
ThreechildrenwereactuallyentrustedtopetitionerandLim.Thethird,whowasnamedPrimoJudeP.Lim,wasstillaminor
atthetimethepetitionforadoptionwasfiled.ThecasewasdocketedasSPL.PROC.No.1260.Petitioneroptednottoappeal
thedecisioninsofarastheminorPrimoJudeP.Limwasconcerned.
[3]
Records(SPL.PROC.CaseNo.1258),pp.9496.
[4]
Records(SPL.PROC.CaseNo.1259),pp.6971.
[5]
Section22ofRA8552provides:
SEC.22.RectificationofSimulatedBirths.Apersonwhohas,priortotheeffectivityofthisAct, simulatedthebirthofachild
shallnotbepunishedforsuchact:Provided,Thatthesimulationofbirthwasmadeforthebestinterestofthechildandthat
he/shehasbeenconsistentlyconsideredandtreatedbythatpersonashis/herownson/daughter:Provided,further, That the
application for correction of the birth registration and petition for adoption shall be filed within five (5) years from the
effectivityofthisActandcompletedthereafter:Provided,finally,Thatsuchpersoncomplieswiththeprocedureasspecifiedin
ArticleIVofthisActandotherrequirementsasdeterminedbytheDepartment.
[6]
An Act Establishing the Rules and Policies on the Domestic Adoption of Filipino Children and For Other Purposes,
otherwiseknownastheDomesticAdoptionActof1998.Approvedon25February1998.
[7]
Records(SPL.PROC.CaseNo.1258),pp.147148.
[8]
Id.at147.
[9]
Id.at149.
[10]
Id.at145.
[11]
Records(SPL.PROC.CaseNo.1259),p.8.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/16899293.htm

10/11

3/30/2016

G.R.Nos.16899293

[12]
Republicv.Toledano,G.R.No.94147,8June1994,233SCRA9.
[13]
Article209,FamilyCode.
[14]
Article210,FamilyCode.
[15]
Article212,FamilyCode.
[16]
RepublicActNo.6809,AnActLoweringtheAgeofMajorityfromTwentyOnetoEighteen Years,Amending for the
PurposeExecutiveOrderNumberedTwoHundredNine,andForOtherPurposes.
[17]
Article236,FamilyCode,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.6809.
[18]
Section33,ArticleVI,RulesandRegulationstoImplementtheDomesticAdoptionActof1998.
[19]
Article174,FamilyCode.
[20]
Section34,ArticleVI,RulesandRegulationstoImplementtheDomesticAdoptionActof1998.
[21]
Article195,FamilyCode.
[22]
Section18,ArticleV,RA8552.
[23]
Bobanovicv.Montes,226Phil.404(1986).
[24]
336Phil.944,948949(1997).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/16899293.htm

11/11