Search
Home
Saved
0
5 views
Sign In
Upload
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Spec Pro - Lahum vs Sibulo Uploaded by Negou Xian Te
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Digest
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Week 1 Cases
1
of 1
SKINNY
LAHOM VS SIBULO
CASES
Posted by kaye lee on 7:49 PM
Case Digests and Scratch
G.R. No. 143989 July 14, 2003
Equal Remuneration
Concept of Law Has Been Said
Search document
Search
QUESTIONS?
Notes
Home About
FACTS: A childless couple adopted adopted the wife's nephew and brought brought him up as their own. In 1972, the trial court granted the petition for adoption, and ordered the Civil Registrar to change the name Jose Melvin Sibulo to Jose Melvin Lahom. Mrs. Lahom commenced a petition to rescind the decree of adoption, in which she averred, that, despite the her pleas and that of her husband, their adopted son refused to use their surname Lahom surname Lahom and and continue to use Sibulo in all his dealing and activities. Prior to the institution of the case, in 1998, RA No. 8552 8552 went into effect. The new statute deleted from the law the right of adopters to rescind a decree of adoption (Section 19 of 19 of Article VI). These turn of events revealing Jose's revealing Jose's callous indifference, callous indifference, ingratitude and lack of care and concern prompted Lahom Lahom to file file a petition in Court in December 1999 to rescind the decree of adoption previo adoption previously usly issued way back on May 5, 1972. When Lahom filed said petition there was there was already already a new law on adoption, specifically R.A. 8552 also known as the Domestic Adoption Act passed on March 22,1998, wherein it was provided that: "Adoption, "Adopti on, being in the interest of the child, shall not be subject to rescission by the adopter(s). adopter(s). However However the adopter(s) may disinherit the adoptee for causes provided in provided in Article 919 Article 919 of the Civil Code" (Section 19). ISSUE: Whether or not the subject adoption adoption still still be revoked or rescinded by an adopter after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552, and if in the affirmative, whether or not the adopter’s action prescribed. RULING: Jurisdiction of the the court is determined determined by the statute in force force at the time of the commencement commenceme nt of the action. The controversy should be resolved in the light of the law governing at the time the petition was filed. In this case, it was months after the effectivity of RA 8552 that Lahom filed an action to revoke the decree of adoption granted in 1972. By then the new law had already abrogated and repealed the right of the adopter under the Civil Code and the family Code to rescind a decree of adoption. So the rescission of the adoption decree, having been initiated by Lahom after RA 8552 had come into force, could no longer be pursued.
Name
Email ID
CATEGORIES
Constitutional Law 1 Criminal Law 1 Criminal Law Cases Haiku Case Digest
Persons and Family Re
Statutory Constructio Taxation
Activist Post Audio Codals
Law and Sexualit Besides, even before the passage of RA8552, an action to set aside the adoption is subject to the five year bar rule under Rule 100 of the Rules of Court and that the Music Playlist for adopter would lose the right to revoke the adoption decree after the lapse of that Phil Jurisprudenc period. The exercise of the right within a prescriptive period is a condition that could not fulfill the requirements of a vested right entitled to protection. Rights are considered vested when the right to the enjoyment is a present interest, absolute, About Skinny Cases unconditionall and perfect or fixed and irrefutable. The concept of a "vested right" unconditiona is a consequence of the constitutional guarantee of due process that expresses a Never mind. present fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice is protected against View Complete Profile arbitrary state action. While adoption has often been referred to in the context of Sign up to vote on this title a "right", it is not naturally innate or fundamental fundamental but rather a right merely created by statute. It is more of a privilege that is governed by the state's determination Life, liberty, and prop Useful Notonuseful what it may deem to be for the best interest and welfare of the child. Matters because men have m relating to adoption, including the withdrawal of the right of the adopter to nullify contrary, it was the fa the adoption decree, are subject to State regulation. Concomitantly, a right of and property existed
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join