Scribd
Upload
67 views1 page

Lahom vs. Sibulo G.R. No. 143989 - July 14, 2003

The document discusses a case where spouses adopted a child but later filed a petition to rescind the adoption decree. The child moved for dismissal arguing a new law deleted the right to rescind an adoption. The court ruled the rescission action could no longer be pursued but an adopter could still deny inheritance benefits to an undeserving adopted child.

Uploaded by

Elah Viktoria
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views1 page

Lahom vs. Sibulo G.R. No. 143989 - July 14, 2003

The document discusses a case where spouses adopted a child but later filed a petition to rescind the adoption decree. The child moved for dismissal arguing a new law deleted the right to rescind an adoption. The court ruled the rescission action could no longer be pursued but an adopter could still deny inheritance benefits to an undeserving adopted child.

Uploaded by

Elah Viktoria
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

LAHOM VS.

SIBULO
G.R. No. 143989 - July 14, 2003

J. Melencio-Herrera

FACTS:

The spouses Dr. Diosdado Lahom and Isabelita Lahom decided to file
a petition for adoption of Jose Melvin Sibulo. Subsequently, an order
granting the petition was issued. In keeping with the court order, the civil
registrar of Naga City, changed the name of Jose Melvin Sibulo to Josde
Melvin Lahom. Eventually, Mrs. Lahom commenced a petition to rescind
the decree of adoption for the reason that respondent, despite the pleadings
of said spouses, refused to change his surname to Lahom to the frustrations
of the spouses. In all the dealings and activities he is Jose Melvin Sibulo.
That herein petitioner being a widow, and living alone, has yearned for the
care and show of concern from a son, but respondent remained indifferent
and would only come to Naga to see her once a year.

Prior to the institution of the case, RA No. 8552, also known as the
Domestic Adoption Act, went into effect. The new statute deleted from the
law the right of adopters to rescind a decree of adoption. To this Melvin
moved for the dismissal of the petition contending that the petitioner had no
cause of action.

ISSUE:

Whether the adopter, while barred from severing the legal ties of
adoption, can always, for a valid reason cause the forfeiture of his
inheritance.

RULING:
It was months after the effectively of RA 8552 that herein petitioner
filed an action to revoke. By then, the new law, had already abrogated and
repealed the right of an adopter under the Civil Code. Consistently, the court
held that the action for rescission of the adoption decree no longer could be
pursued. However, an adopter, while barred from severing the legal ties of
adoption, can always for a valid reason cause the forfeiture of certain
benefits otherwise accruing to an undeserving child. Upon the grounds
provided for by law, an adopter may deny to an adopted child his legitime,
and, by will, may freely exclude him from having a share in the disposable
portion of his estate.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy