#19.

LAHOM VS SIBULO

G.R. No. 143989 July 14, 2003

FACTS:

A childless couple adopted the wife's nephew and 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 and continue to use Sibulo in all his
dealing and activities. Prior to the institution of the case, in 1998, RA No. 8552 went into effect.
The new statute deleted from the law the right of adopters to rescind a decree of adoption
(Section 19 of Article VI).

These turn of events revealing Jose's callous indifference, ingratitude and lack of care and
concern prompted Lahom to file a petition in Court in December 1999 to rescind the decree of
adoption previously issued way back on May 5, 1972. When Lahom filed said petition there was
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, being in the interest of the
child, shall not be subject to rescission by the adopter(s). However the adopter(s) may disinherit
the adoptee for causes provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code" (Section 19).

ISSUE:

Whether or not the subject adoption still be revoked or rescinded by an adopter after the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 adopters action
prescribed.

RULING:

Jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement
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abrogated and repealed the right of the adopter under the Civil Code and the family Code to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.
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 adopter would lose the
right to revoke the adoption decree after the lapse of that 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, unconditional and perfect or fixed and irrefutable. The concept of a "vested right" is a
consequence of the constitutional guarantee of due process that expresses a present fixed
interest which in right reason and natural justice is protected against arbitrary state action. While
adoption has often been referred to in the context of a "right", it is not naturally innate or
fundamental but rather a right merely created by statute. It is more of a privilege that is
governed by the state's determination on what it may deem to be for the best interest and
welfare of the child. Matters relating to adoption, including the withdrawal of the right of the
adopter to nullify the adoption decree, are subject to State regulation. Concomitantly, a right of
action given by a statute may be taken away at any time before it has been exercised.

But an adopter, while barred from severing the legal ties of adoption, can always for valid
reasons cause the forfeiture of certain benefits otherwise accruing to an undeserving child, like
denying him his legitime, and by will and testament, may expressly exclude him from having a
share in the disposable portion of his estate.

Categories: Adoption, G.R. No. 143989, Persons and Family Relations, Philippine Civil Code

Newer Post