Castro vs. Gregorio, G.R. # 188801, Oct.

15, 2014

FACTS: Atty. Jose Castro was allegedly married to Rosario Castro (Petitioner). Unfortunately,
they separated later on due to their incompatibilities and Jose’s alleged homosexual tendencies.
Their marriage bore two daughters: Rose Marie, who died after nine days from birth due to
congenital heart disease, and Joanne Castro (Petitioner).

In 2000, Jose filed a petition for adoption of Jed and Regina Gregorio, who he alleged to be his
illegitimate children with Lilibeth Gregrio, his housekeeper. The trial court approved the
adoption.

Later on, a disbarment complaint was filed against Jose by Rosario, alleging that he had been
remiss in providing support for their daughter, Joanne, for the past 36 years. She alleged that
she single-handedly raised and provided financial support to Joanne while Jose had been
showering gifts to his driver and alleged lover, Larry Rentegrado, and even went to the extent of
adopting Larry's two children, Jed and Regina, without her and Joanne's knowledge and
consent. Jose denied the allegations and maintains that Jed and Regina were his illegitimate
children. Later on, Jose died.

Rosario and Joanne filed a petition for annulment of judgment seeking to annul the decision of
the trial court approving Jed and Regina’s adoption, alleging that Rosario’s consent was not
obtained and the document purporting as Rosario’s affidavit of consent was fraudulent.
Petitioners argue that they should have been given notice by the trial court of the adoption, as
adoption laws require their consent as a requisite in the proceedings.

ISSUE: Whether or not consent of the spouse and legitimate children is required for filing a
petition for adoption.

RULING: Yes. Under RA No. 8552, the law prevailing at the time the petition for adoption was
filed, the law on adoption requires that the adoption by the father of a child born out of
wedlock obtain not only the consent of his wife but also the consent of his legitimate
children. As a general rule, the husband and wife must file a joint petition for adoption. The law
provides for several exceptions to the general rule, as in a situation where a spouse seeks to
adopt his or her own children born out of wedlock. In this instance, joint adoption is not
necessary. However, the spouse seeking to adopt must first obtain the consent of his or her
spouse. Furthermore, 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.

In the absence of any decree of legal separation or annulment, Jose and Rosario remained
legally married despite their de facto separation. For Jose to be eligible to adopt Jed and
Regina, Rosario must first signify her consent to the adoption. Jose, however, did not validly
obtain Rosario's consent. His submission of a fraudulent affidavit of consent in her name cannot
be considered compliance of the requisites of the law. Had Rosario been given notice by the
trial court of the proceedings, she would have had a reasonable opportunity to contest the
validity of the affidavit. Since her consent was not obtained, Jose was ineligible to adopt.

For the adoption to be valid, petitioners' consent was required by RA No. 8552. Personal
service of summons should have been effected on the spouse and all legitimate children
to ensure that their substantive rights are protected. It is not enough to rely on
constructive notice as in this case. Surreptitious use of procedural technicalities cannot
be privileged over substantive statutory rights.
In Re Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, G.R. #168992-993, May 21, 2009

FACTS:

Petitioner Monina Lim is married to Primo Lim. They were childless. Two minor children were
entrusted to them by Lucia Ayuban. They registered the children (Michelle Lim and Michael Lim)
to make it appear that they were their parents. The spouses reared and cared for the children
as if they were their own. Unfortunately, Primo died. Later on, petitioner married Angel Olario,
an American citizen.

Thereafter, petitioner decided to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty given under RA
No. 8552 to those individuals who simulated the birth of a child. At the time of the filing of the
petitions for adoption, Michelle was 25 years old and already married, while Michael was 18
years and seven months old. Michelle and her husband, and also Michael and Olario, gave their
consent to the adoption.

The RTC dismissed the petitions ruling that since petitioner had remarried, petitioner should
have filed the petition jointly with her new husband. Petitioner contends that the rule on joint
adoption must be relaxed because it is the duty of the court and the State to protect the
paramount interest and welfare of the child to be adopted.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not petitioner, who has remarried, can singly adopt.
2. Whether or not parental authority is not anymore necessary since the children have
been emancipated having reached the age of majority.

RULING:

1. No. Section 7, Article III of RA 8552 provides that husband and wife shall jointly
adopt. The use of the word "shall" in the above-quoted provision means that joint
adoption by the husband and the wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with the
concept of joint parental authority over the child which is the ideal situation. As the child
to be adopted is elevated to the level of a legitimate child, it is but natural to
require the spouses to adopt jointly. The rule also insures harmony between the
spouses.

The law is clear. There is no room for ambiguity. Petitioner, having remarried at the time
the petitions for adoption were filed, must jointly adopt. Since the petitions for adoption
were filed only by petitioner herself, without joining her husband, Olario, the trial court
was correct in denying the petitions for adoption on this ground. Neither does petitioner
fall under any of the three exceptions enumerated in Section 7. First, the children to be
adopted are not the legitimate children of petitioner or of her husband Olario. Second,
the children are not the illegitimate children of petitioner. And third, petitioner and Olario
are not legally separated from each other.

2. No. It is true that when the child reaches the age of emancipation -- that is, when he
attains the age of majority or 18 years of age -- emancipation terminates parental
authority over the person and property of the child, who shall then be qualified and
responsible for all acts of civil life. However, parental authority is merely just one of the
effects of legal adoption. Even if emancipation terminates parental authority, the adoptee
is still considered a legitimate child of the adopter with all the rights of a legitimate child.