LAHOM VS SIBULO G.R. No. 143989 July 14, 2003 FACTS: A childless couple couple adopted adopted the wife's wife's ephew ad !"ou#ht !"ou#ht hi$ up as thei" ow. ow. % 19&2, 19&2, the t"ial cou"t #"ated #"ated the petitio fo" adoptio, ad o"de"ed the i(il Re#ist"a" to cha#e the a$e Jose )el(i *i!ulo to Jose )el(i +aho$. )"s. +aho$ co$$eced a petitio to "escid the dec"ee of adoptio, i which she a(e""ed, that, despite the he" pleas ad that of he" hus!ad, thei" adopted so "efused to use thei" su"a$e +aho$ ad cotiue to use *i!ulo i all his deali# ad acti(ities. "io" to the istitutio of the case, i 1998, RA No. 8--2 wet ito effect. he ew statute deleted f"o$ the law the "i#ht of adopte"s to "escid a dec"ee of adoptio /*ectio 19 of A"ticle %. hese tu" of e(ets "e(eali# Jose's callous idiffe"ece, i#"atitude ad lac of ca"e ad coce" p"o$pted +aho$ to file a petitio i ou"t i ece$!e" 1999 to "escid the dec"ee of adoptio p"e(iously issued way !ac o )ay -, 19&2. he +aho$ filed said petitio the"e was al"eady a ew law o adoptio, specifically R.A. 8--2 also ow as the o$estic Adoptio Act passed o )a"ch 22,1998, whe"ei it was p"o(ided that5 6Adoptio, !ei# i the ite"est of the child, shall ot !e su!7ect to "escissio !y the adopte"/s. owe(e" the adopte"/s $ay disihe"it the adoptee fo" causes p"o(ided i A"ticle 919 of the i(il ode6 /*ectio 19. ISSUE: hethe" o" ot the su!7ect adoptio still !e "e(oed o" "escided !y a adopte" afte" the effecti(ity of R.A. No. 8--2, ad if i the affi"$ati(e, whethe" o" ot the adopte"s actio p"esc"i!ed. RULING: Ju"isdictio of the cou"t is dete"$ied !y the statute i fo"ce at the ti$e of the co$$ece$et of the actio. he cot"o(e"sy should !e "esol(ed i the li#ht of the law #o(e"i# at the ti$e the petitio was filed. % this case, it was $oths afte" the effecti(ity of RA 8--2 that +aho$ filed a actio to "e(oe the dec"ee of adoptio #"ated i 19&2. :y the the ew law had al"eady a!"o#ated ad "epealed the "i#ht of the adopte" ude" the i(il ode ad the fa$ily ode to "escid a dec"ee of adoptio. *o the "escissio of the adoptio dec"ee, ha(i# !ee iitiated !y +aho$ afte" RA 8--2 had co$e ito fo"ce, could o lo#e" !e pu"sued. :esides, e(e !efo"e the passa#e of RA8--2, a actio to set aside the adoptio is su!7ect to the fi(e yea" !a" "ule ude" Rule 100 of the Rules of ou"t ad that the adopte" would lose the "i#ht to "e(oe the adoptio dec"ee afte" the lapse of that pe"iod. he e;e"cise of the "i#ht withi a p"esc"ipti(e pe"iod is a coditio that could ot fulfill the "e
ISABELITA S. LAHOM, petitioner, vs. JOSE MELVIN SIBULO (previously referred to s !". MELVIN S. LAHOM#, respondent. !E$ISION VITU%, J .& he !liss of $a""ia#e ad fa$ily would !e to $ost less tha co$plete without child"e. he "eali=atio could ha(e liely p"odded the spouses ". iosdado +aho$ ad %sa!elita +aho$ to tae ito thei" ca"e %sa!elitas ephew Jose )el(i *i!ulo ad to !"i# hi$ up as thei" ow. At the tede" a#e of two, Jose )el(i e7oyed the wa"$th, lo(e ad suppo"t of the couple who t"eated the child lie thei" ow. %deed, fo" yea"s, ". ad )"s. +aho$ facied o le#ally adopti# Jose )el(i. >ially, i 19&1, the couple decided to file a petitio fo" adoptio. ? 0- )ay 19&2, a o"de" #"ati# the petitio was issued that $ade all the $o"e itese tha !efo"e the feeli# of affectio of the spouses fo" )el(i. % eepi# with the cou"t o"de", the i(il Re#ist"a" of Na#a ity cha#ed the a$e Jose )el(i *i!ulo to Jose )el(i +aho$. A sad tu" of e(ets ca$e $ay yea"s late". @(etually, i ece$!e" of 1999, )"s. +aho$ co$$eced a petitio to "escid the dec"ee of adoptio !efo"e the Re#ioal "ial ou"t /R, :"ach 22, of Na#a ity. % he" petitio, she a (e""ed &. hat ; ; ; despite the p"oddi#s ad pleadi#s of said spouses, "espodet "efused to cha#e his su"a$e f"o$ *i!ulo to +aho$, to the f"ust"atios of petitioe" pa"ticula"ly he" hus!ad util the latte" died, ad e(e !efo"e his death he had $ade ow his desi"e to "e(oe "espodets adoptio, !ut was p"e(eted !y petitioe"s supplicatio, howe(e" with his fu"the" "e
"io" to the istitutio of the case, specifically o 22 )a"ch 1998, Repu!lic Act /R.A. No. 8--2, also ow as the o$estic Adoptio Act, wet ito effect. he ew statute deleted f"o$ the law the "i#ht of adopte"s to "escid a dec"ee of adoptio. *ectio 19 of A"ticle % of R.A. No. 8--2 ow "eads5 *@. 19. Grounds for Rescission of Adoption. Epo petitio of the adoptee, with the assistace of the epa"t$et if a $io" o" if o(e" ei#htee /18 yea"s of a#e !ut is icapacitated, as #ua"diaFcousel, the adoptio $ay !e "escided o ay of the followi# #"ouds co$$itted !y the adopte"/s5 /a "epeated physical ad (e"!al $alt"eat$et !y the adopte"/s despite ha(i# ude"#oe couseli# /! atte$pt o the life of the adoptee /c se;ual assault o" (iolece o" /d a!ado$et ad failu"e to co$ply with pa"etal o!li#atios. Adoptio', ei') i' t*e est i'terest of t*e +*ild, s*ll 'ot e sue+t to res+issio' y t*e dopter(s#. Ho-ever, t*e dopter(s# y disi'*erit t*e doptee for +uses provided i' Arti+le /0/ of t*e $ivil $ode. (emphasis suppied! Jose )el(i $o(ed fo" the dis$issal of the petitio, cotedi# p"icipally /a that the t"ial cou"t had o 7u"isdictio o(e" the case ad /! that the petitioe" had o cause of actio i (iew of the afo"ea$ily ode. % a o"de", dated 28 Ap"il 2000, the t"ial cou"t held thusly5 ? the issue of 7u"isdictio o(e" the su!7ect $atte" of the suit, *ectio -/c of R.A. No. 83B9 cofe"s 7u"isdictio to this ou"t, ha(i# !ee desi#ated >a$ily ou"t i A.). No. 99110& *. ? the $atte" of o cause of actio, the test o the sufficiecy of the facts alle#ed i the co$plait, is whethe" o" ot, ad$itti# the facts alle#ed, the ou"t could "ede" a (alid 7ud#$et i acco"dace with the p"aye" of said co$plait /e Jesus, et al. (s. :ela"$io, et al., 9- hil. 3B-. Ad$ittedly, *ectio 19, A"ticle % of R.A. No. 8--2 deleted the "i#ht of a adopte" to "escid a adoptio ea"lie" #"ated ude" the >a$ily ode. ofo"$a!ly, o the face of the p etitio, ideed the"e is lac of cause of actio. etitioe" howe(e", isists that he" "i#ht to "escid lo# aca$ily ode should !e "espected. Assu$i# fo" the sae of a"#u$et, that petitioe" is etitled to "escid the adoptio of "espodet #"ated o )ay -, 19&2, said "i#ht should ha(e !ee e;e"cised withi the pe"iod allowed !y the Rules. >"o$ the a (e"$ets i the petitio, it appea"s clea" that the le#al #"ouds fo" the petitio ha(e ! ee disco(e"ed ad ow to petitioe" fo" $o"e tha fi(e /- yea"s, p"io" to the fili# of the istat petitio o ece$!e" 1, 1999, hece, the actio if ay, had al"eady p"esc"i!ed. /*ec. -, Rule 100 Re(ised Rules of ou"t @R@>?R@, i (iew of the fo"e#oi# coside"atio, the petitio is o"de"ed dis$issed. C4D #ia a petitio fo" "e(iew o certiorari ude" Rule 4- of the 199& Rules of ou"t, petitioe" "aises the followi#
A !"ief !ac#"oud o the law ad its o"i#is could p"o(ide so$e isi#hts o the su!7ect. % aciet ti$es, the Ro$as ude"too adoptio to assu"e $ale hei"s i the fa$ily. C-D he cotiuity of the adopte"s fa$ily was the p"i$a"y pu"pose of adoptio ad all $atte"s "elati# to it !asically focused o the "i#hts of the adopte". he"e was ha"dly ay $etio a!out the "i#hts of the adopted. CBD out"ies, lie G"eece, >"ace, *pai ad @#lad, i a effo"t to p"ese"(e ihe"itace withi the fa$ily, eithe" allowed o" "eco#i=ed adoptio. C&D %t was oly $uch late" whe adoptio was #i(e a i$petus i law ad still late" whe the welfa"e of the child !eca$e a pa"a$out coce". C8D *pai itself which p"e(iously disfa(o"ed adoptio ulti$ately "eleted ad accepted the Ro$a law cocept of adoptio which, su!sea$ily ode of the hilippies,C14D #a(e i$$ediate statuto"y acowled#$et to the "i#hts of the adopted. % 1989, the Eited Natios iitiated the o(etio of the Ri#hts of the hild. he hilippies, a *tate a"ty to the o(etio, accepted the p"iciple that adoptio was i$p"essed with social ad $o"al "esposi!ility, ad that its ude"lyi# itet was #ea"ed to fa(o" the adopted child. R.A. No. 8--2 secu"ed these "i#hts ad p"i(ile#es fo" the adopted. )ost i$po"tatly, it affi"$ed the le#iti$ate status of the adopted child, ot oly i his e w fa$ily !ut also i the society as well. he ew law withd"ew the "i#ht of a adopte" to "escid the adoptio dec"ee ad #a(e to the adopted child the sole "i#ht to se(e" the le#al ties c"eated !y adoptio. etitioe", howe(e", would isist that R.A. No. 8--2 should ot ad(e"sely affect he" "i#ht to aul the adoptio dec"ee, o" dep"i(e the t"ial cou"t of its 7u"isdictio to hea" the case, !oth !ei# (ested ude" the i(il ode ad the >a$ily ode, the laws the i fo"ce. he cocept of (ested "i#ht is a cosee!"ua"y 1988 whe the hild ad Iouth elfa"e ode /"esidetial ec"ee No. B03 allowed a adoptio to !e sou#ht !y eit*er spouse o" ot* of the$. Afte" the t"ial cou"t had "ede"ed its decisio ad while the case was still pedi# o appeal, the >a$ily ode of the hilippies /@;ecuti(e ?"de" No. 209, 'dti') oi't doptio' y t*e *us'd 'd -ife, too effect. etitioe" Repu!lic a"#ued that the case should !e dis$issed fo" ha(i# !ee filed !y )"s. :o!iles aloe ad without !ei# 7oied !y the hus!ad. he ou"t cocluded that the urisdi+tio' of t*e +ourt is deteri'ed y t*e sttute i' for+e at the time of the commencement of the action . he petitio' to dopt Jso', *vi') ee' filed -it* t*e +ourt t t*e tie -*e' 2.!. No. 345 -s still i' effe+t, the "i#ht of )"s. :o!iles to file the petitio, without !ei# 7oied !y he" hus!ad, acco"di# to the ou"t had !eco$e (ested. % Repu&ic $s. 'ier ")*+ spouses laude ad Ju$"us )ille", !oth alies, sou#ht to adopt )ichael )adaya#. ? 29 July 1988, the couple filed a petitio to fo"$ali=e )ichaels adoptio ha(i# the"etofo"e !ee tae ito thei" ca"e. At the ti$e the actio was co$$eced, .. No. B03 allowed alies to adopt. Afte" the dec"ee of adoptio ad while o appeal !efo"e the ou"t of Appeals, the >a$ily ode was eacted ito law o 08 Au#ust 1988 disilipio child"e. he Repu!lic the p"ayed fo" the withd"awal of the adoptio dec"ee. % disca"di# the a"#u$et posed !y the Repu!lic, the *up"e$e ou"t "uled that t*e +o'troversy s*ould e resolved i' t*e li)*t of t*e l- )over'i') at the time the petition was filed . %t was $oths afte" the effecti(ity of R.A. No. 8--2 that he"ei petitioe" filed a actio to "e(oe the dec"ee of adoptio #"ated i 19&-. :y the, the ew law,C22D had al"eady a!"o#ated ad "epealed the "i#ht of a adopte" ude" the i(il ode ad the >a$ily ode to "escid a dec"ee of adoptio. osistetly with its ea"lie" p"oouce$ets, the ou"t
should ow hold that the actio fo" "escissio of the adoptio dec"ee, ha(i# !ee iitiated !y petitioe" afte" R.A. No. 8--2 had co$e ito fo"ce, o lo#e" could !e pu"sued. %te"esti#ly, e(e !efo"e the passa#e of the statute, a actio to set aside the adoptio is su!7ect to the fi(eyea" !a" "ule ude" Rule 100C23D of the Rules of ou"t ad that the adopte" would lose the "i#ht to "e(oe the adoptio dec"ee afte" the lapse of that pe"iod. he e;e"cise of the "i#ht withi a p"esc"ipti(e pe"iod is a coditio that could ot fulfill the "eo" istace, upo the #"ouds "eco#i=ed !y law, a adopte" $ay dey to a adopted child his le#iti$e ad, !y a will ad testa$et, $ay f"eely e;clude hi$ f"o$ ha(i# a sha"e i the disposa!le po"tio of his estate.