To save time, effort and resources, the Supreme Court (SC) reminded that in petitions for adoption, the consent of the adopters’ children who are at least 10 years old is needed for the adoption to prosper and to be valid.
Reiterated by the SC in its decision promulgated last Aug. 7 and made public last Dec. 28 was its 2014 ruling which states: “Consent of the adopter’s other children is necessary as it ensures harmony among the prospective siblings. It also sufficiently puts the other children on notice that they will have to share their parent’s love and care, as well as their future legitime, with another person.”
The reiterative ruling on adoption was contained in the decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh. It denied the petition filed by Nena, not her complete name. (Manila Bulletin decided to redact the names of the persons involved in the case to respect their privacy and for their protection.)
The SC affirmed the June 22, 2021 decision and the Sept. 6, 2022 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which upheld the revised ruling of the regional trial court (RTC). The SC case was docketed as SC GR No. 264146.
In a summary, the SC’s public information office (PIO) said that minor Jo, with unknown father, and her biological mother, Settie, lived in Nena’s house. Nena and her husband Jose supported Jo and Settie.
When Settie eventually abandoned Jo, spouses Nena and Jose provided Jo’s needs and treated her as their own child.
In May 2016, Nena and Jose filed before the RTC a petition for adoption and correction of entries in the birth record of Jo.
Initially, the RTC granted the adoption petition. Later, the trial court set aside its ruling when the legitimate children of Jose told the court that they are indispensable parties in the adoption case being the children of the adopter.
Nena opposed the summons issued by the trial court on the three legitimate children of her husband Jose. When the RTC denied the opposition and its ruling was affirmed by the CA, Nena elevated the case to the SC.
In dismissing Nena’s petition, the PIO said the SC emphasized that Section 9(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8552, the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, is clear that the written consent of the adopter’s legitimate children aged at least 10 years old is required for the adoption to be valid.
It said the SC stressed that personal service of summons on the legitimate children is needed to ensure that their substantive rights are protected. Constructive notice does not suffice, it also said.
The PIO said that in the petition filed by Nena, the SC found that as the respondents (the three legitimate children of Jose) were all over 10 years old at the time of the adoption proceedings, their written consent was necessary.
As legitimate children of one of the adopters, Jose, the three legitimate children are thus indispensable parties to the petition.
Since the three legitimate children were not impleaded, and absent the service of summons upon them, the judgment previously rendered by the RTC granting the adoption is void, the PIO said quoting from the SC decision.