By Rey Panaligan “In adoption proceedings, the welfare of the child is of paramount interest.” This settled rule was reiterated by the Supreme Court (SC) as it ordered the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) to proceed with dispatch on the adoption petition filed by an American couple involving their “daughter” who was barely 22 days old when her biological mother attempted to sell her in exchange for transportation fare. Supreme Court of the Philippines (MANILA BULLETIN) In a resolution written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC reversed the RTC and reconsidered the technical issue raised by the Court of Appeals (CA) in granting the petition filed by spouses Joon Hyung Park and Kyung Ah Lee. A summary of the resolution released by the SC’s public information office (PIO) stated that the girl was born on Dec. 13, 2012 in Tuguegarao City and was barely 22 days old when rescued by a non-governmental organization from trafficking and referred to the Department of Social Welfare Development (DSWD) in Cagayan. She was over a year old when spouses Park and Lee were granted care and custody over the young girl through the DSWD’s Pre-Adoption Placement Authority. Case records showed that the American couple had adopted another girl and the adoption proceedings were granted by Branch 144 of the Makati City RTC. Spouses Park and Lee have been residing in the Philippines since 2007 and 2009, respectively, and have been gainfully employed since then. In 2017, Branch 136 of the Makati City RTC ruled that the adoption petition filed by the couple was a case of inter-country adoption instead of being under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998. As a result, the trial court directed the transmittal of the adoption petition to the Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB) for appropriate action. The couple filed a motion for reconsideration and, when denied, filed a second motion for reconsideration which was also junked by the trial court. When the two motions were denied, the couple elevated the issued to the CA which dismissed their case with a ruling that the couple’s petition was belatedly filed since the counting of the 60-day period to challenge the trial court’s ruling should be counted from the time the denial of the first motion for reconsideration was received. The couple elevated the CA ruling before the SC which ruled that their petition for adoption filed with the Branch 136 of the Makati City RTC “was appropriately filed under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998.” The PIO summary stated: “The Court held that petitioners’ Petition for Adoption was appropriately filed under the Domestic Adoption Act in order for the appropriate Family Court or RTC to take cognizance thereof. “It noted that petitioners have been residing and gainfully employed in the Philippines since 2007 and 2009, and are thus living in the Philippines for at least three continuous years prior to the filing of the petition for adoption, as required by the Domestic Adoption Act. “In view of this, We hold that since the case properly falls under the Domestic Adoption Act, it is for the best interest of the child that the instant case be speedily disposed by continuing the proceedings in the trial court for the determination of whether petitioners are indeed qualified to adopt the child, instead of inappropriately referring the instant domestic adoption case to the ICAB where the proceedings may have to start anew and might be referred back to the trial court for the continuation of the domestic adoption proceedings. “Settled is the rule that in adoption proceedings, the welfare of the child is of paramount interest.”