Couples eyeing adoption need consent of their legitimate children – SC

MANILA, Philippines — It’s all about ensuring harmony in the family.

The Supreme Court has reminded couples who are planning to bring in a new family member through adoption to ensure that the legitimate children have given their consent for the process to be legally binding.

In a recent ruling, the high court’s Third Division emphasized that Section 9(c) of Republic Act No. 8552, or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, was clear that the written consent of the adopter’s legitimate children, aged at least 10, is required for the adoption to be valid.

The 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 legitimes, with another person,” the Supreme Court said, reiterating its 2014 ruling.

Further, it 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,” the Supreme Court said.

READ: Simpler child adoption process gives families, children ‘better chances’ – Daza

READ: New adoption law welcomed: ‘For families created by destiny’

READ: House probe sought into alleged illegal adoption schemes on social media

Challenged CA rulings

The reiterative ruling on adoption was contained in a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh on Aug. 7, 2023, but which was made public only on Dec. 28, 2023.

It denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Nena, a woman from Cebu City, who, together with her husband, Jose, filed in May 2016 a petition for adoption and correction of entries in the birth record of Jo, a minor abandoned by her biological mother and has no known father. (The full identities of the family members are withheld in this report for their privacy.)

The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of the regional trial court (RTC) setting aside the adoption decree previously granted in favor of Nena.

In a statement summarizing its decision, the high court’s public information office said Nena and Jose provided Jo with all of her needs and showered her with love and care as if she was their own child ever since she was abandoned by her biological mother.

‘Indispensable party’

The RTC initially granted the petition for adoption but set such ruling aside upon motion by the legitimate children of Jose, claiming they were indispensable parties to the petition.

The RTC then reinstated the case and issued summons to be served on the respondents, which was opposed by Nena and Jose before the RTC and the CA. With the RTC and CA denying their motions, Nena elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

In its ruling, the high court found that as Jose’s three legitimate children 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, respondents are thus indispensable parties to the petition,” the Supreme Court said.

Null and void

Since the respondents were not impleaded, and absent the service of summons, the judgment previously rendered by the RTC granting the adoption was void, the court ruled.

“The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, as such, the court has no authority to act not only as to the absent party but also as to those present,” said the high court.

The Supreme Court added that since such RTC judgment was void, the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment did not apply.

Under this doctrine, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, the Supreme Court said.

Exceptions

It added, however, that the following are exceptions to this rule: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (b) the existence of a special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) the lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced.