G.R. Nos.

168992-93               May 21, 2009 court docketed as SPL PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and
1259, respectively. At the time of the filing of the
IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE petitions for adoption, Michelle was 25 years old
P. LIM, and already married, while Michael was 18 years
and seven months old.
MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner.
Michelle and her husband gave their consent to the
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x adoption as evidenced by their Affidavits of
Consent.7 Michael also gave his consent to his
adoption as shown in his Affidavit of
IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHAEL
Consent.8 Petitioner’s husband Olario likewise
JUDE P. LIM,
executed an Affidavit of Consent9 for the adoption of
Michelle and Michael.
MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner.
In the Certification issued by the Department of
DECISION Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Michelle
was considered as an abandoned child and the
CARPIO, J.: whereabouts of her natural parents were
unknown.10 The DSWD issued a similar Certification
The Case for Michael.11

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by The Ruling of the Trial Court
Monina P. Lim (petitioner) seeking to set aside the
Decision1 dated 15 September 2004 of the Regional On 15 September 2004, the trial court rendered
Trial Court, General Santos City, Branch 22 (trial judgment dismissing the petitions. The trial court
court), in SPL. PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and 1259, ruled that since petitioner had remarried, petitioner
which dismissed without prejudice the consolidated should have filed the petition jointly with her new
petitions for adoption of Michelle P. Lim and Michael husband. The trial court ruled that joint adoption by
Jude P. Lim. the husband and the wife is mandatory citing
Section 7(c), Article III of RA 8552 and Article 185 of
The Facts the Family Code.

The following facts are undisputed. Petitioner is an Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
optometrist by profession. On 23 June 1974, she decision but the motion was denied in the Order
married Primo Lim (Lim). They were childless. Minor dated 16 June 2005. In denying the motion, the trial
children, whose parents were unknown, were court ruled that petitioner did not fall under any of
entrusted to them by a certain Lucia Ayuban the exceptions under Section 7(c), Article III of RA
(Ayuban). Being so eager to have a child of their 8552. Petitioner’s argument that mere consent of
own, petitioner and Lim registered the children to her husband would suffice was untenable because,
make it appear that they were the children’s under the law, there are additional requirements,
parents. The children2 were named Michelle P. Lim such as residency and certification of his
(Michelle) and Michael Jude P. Lim (Michael). qualification, which the husband, who was not even
Michelle was barely eleven days old when brought made a party in this case, must comply.
to the clinic of petitioner. She was born on 15 March
1977.3 Michael was 11 days old when Ayuban As to the argument that the adoptees are already
brought him to petitioner’s clinic. His date of birth is emancipated and joint adoption is merely for the
1 August 1983.4 joint exercise of parental authority, the trial court
ruled that joint adoption is not only for the purpose
The spouses reared and cared for the children as if of exercising parental authority because an
they were their own. They sent the children to emancipated child acquires certain rights from his
exclusive schools. They used the surname "Lim" in parents and assumes certain obligations and
all their school records and documents. responsibilities.
Unfortunately, on 28 November 1998, Lim died. On
27 December 2000, petitioner married Angel Olario Hence, the present petition.
(Olario), an American citizen.
Issue
Thereafter, petitioner decided to adopt the children
by availing of the amnesty5 given under Republic Petitioner appealed directly to this Court raising the
Act No. 85526 (RA 8552) to those individuals who sole issue of whether or not petitioner, who has
simulated the birth of a child. Thus, on 24 April remarried, can singly adopt.
2002, petitioner filed separate petitions for the
adoption of Michelle and Michael before the trial
The Court’s Ruling
Petitioner contends that the rule on joint adoption (i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a
must be relaxed because it is the duty of the court relative within the fourth (4th) degree of
and the State to protect the paramount interest and consanguinity or affinity; or
welfare of the child to be adopted. Petitioner argues
that the legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" is not (ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate
applicable to adoption cases. She argues that joint son/daughter of his/her Filipino spouse; or
parental authority is not necessary in this case
since, at the time the petitions were filed, Michelle (iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and
was 25 years old and already married, while seeks to adopt jointly with his/her spouse a relative
Michael was already 18 years of age. Parental within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or
authority is not anymore necessary since they have affinity of the Filipino spouses; or
been emancipated having attained the age of
majority.
(c) The guardian with respect to the ward after the
termination of the guardianship and clearance of
We deny the petition. his/her financial accountabilities.

Joint Adoption by Husband and Wife Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in
the following cases:
It is undisputed that, at the time the petitions for
adoption were filed, petitioner had already (i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate
remarried. She filed the petitions by herself, without son/daughter of the other; or
being joined by her husband Olario. We have no
other recourse but to affirm the trial court’s decision
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own
denying the petitions for adoption. Dura lex sed
illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, however, That
lex. The law is explicit. Section 7, Article III of RA
the other spouse has signified his/her consent
8552 reads:
thereto; or
SEC. 7. Who May Adopt. - The following may adopt:
(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each
other.
(a) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of
full civil capacity and legal rights, of good moral
In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one
character, has not been convicted of any crime
spouse adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of the
involving moral turpitude, emotionally and
other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by
psychologically capable of caring for children, at
the spouses. (Emphasis supplied)
least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee, and
who is in a position to support and care for his/her
children in keeping with the means of the family. The use of the word "shall" in the above-quoted
The requirement of sixteen (16) year difference provision means that joint adoption by the husband
between the age of the adopter and adoptee may and the wife is mandatory. This is in consonance
be waived when the adopter is the biological parent with the concept of joint parental authority over the
of the adoptee, or is the spouse of the adoptee’s child which is the ideal situation. As the child to be
parent; 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
(b) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as
spouses.12
above stated for Filipino nationals: Provided, That
his/her country has diplomatic relations with the
Republic of the Philippines, that he/she has been The law is clear. There is no room for ambiguity.
living in the Philippines for at least three (3) Petitioner, having remarried at the time the petitions
continuous years prior to the filing of the application for adoption were filed, must jointly adopt. Since the
for adoption and maintains such residence until the petitions for adoption were filed only by petitioner
adoption decree is entered, that he/she has been herself, without joining her husband, Olario, the trial
certified by his/her diplomatic or consular office or court was correct in denying the petitions for
any appropriate government agency that he/she has adoption on this ground.
the legal capacity to adopt in his/her country, and
that his/her government allows the adoptee to enter Neither does petitioner fall under any of the three
his/her country as his/her adopted exceptions enumerated in Section 7. First, the
son/daughter: Provided, further, That the children to be adopted are not the legitimate
requirements on residency and certification of the children of petitioner or of her husband Olario.
alien’s qualification to adopt in his/her country may Second, the children are not the illegitimate children
be waived for the following: of petitioner. And third, petitioner and Olario are not
legally separated from each other.
The fact that Olario gave his consent to the adoption SEC. 17. Legitimacy. - The adoptee shall be
as shown in his Affidavit of Consent does not considered the legitimate son/daughter of the
suffice. There are certain requirements that Olario adopter(s) for all intents and purposes and as such
must comply being an American citizen. He must is entitled to all the rights and obligations provided
meet the qualifications set forth in Section 7 of RA by law to legitimate sons/daughters born to them
8552 such as: (1) he must prove that his country without discrimination of any kind. To this end, the
has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the adoptee is entitled to love, guidance, and support in
Philippines; (2) he must have been living in the keeping with the means of the family.
Philippines for at least three continuous years prior
to the filing of the application for adoption; (3) he SEC. 18. Succession. - In legal and intestate
must maintain such residency until the adoption succession, the adopter(s) and the adoptee shall
decree is entered; (4) he has legal capacity to adopt have reciprocal rights of succession without
in his own country; and (5) the adoptee is allowed to distinction from legitimate filiation. However, if the
enter the adopter’s country as the latter’s adopted adoptee and his/her biological parent(s) had left a
child. None of these qualifications were shown and will, the law on testamentary succession shall
proved during the trial. govern.

These requirements on residency and certification Adoption has, thus, the following effects: (1) sever
of the alien’s qualification to adopt cannot likewise all legal ties between the biological parent(s) and
be waived pursuant to Section 7. The children or the adoptee, except when the biological parent is
adoptees are not relatives within the fourth degree the spouse of the adopter; (2) deem the adoptee as
of consanguinity or affinity of petitioner or of Olario. a legitimate child of the adopter; and (3) give
Neither are the adoptees the legitimate children of adopter and adoptee reciprocal rights and
petitioner. obligations arising from the relationship of parent
and child, including but not limited to: (i) the right of
Effects of Adoption the adopter to choose the name the child is to be
known; and (ii) the right of the adopter and adoptee
Petitioner contends that joint parental authority is to be legal and compulsory heirs of each
not anymore necessary since the children have other.18 Therefore, even if emancipation terminates
been emancipated having reached the age of parental authority, the adoptee is still considered a
majority. This is untenable. legitimate child of the adopter with all the rights 19 of
a legitimate child such as: (1) to bear the surname
Parental authority includes caring for and rearing of the father and the mother; (2) to receive support
the children for civic consciousness and efficiency from their parents; and (3) to be entitled to the
and the development of their moral, mental and legitime and other successional rights. Conversely,
physical character and well-being.13 The father and the adoptive parents shall, with respect to the
the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority adopted child, enjoy all the benefits to which
over the persons of their common children.14 Even biological parents are entitled20 such as
the remarriage of the surviving parent shall not support  and successional rights.22
21

affect the parental authority over the children,

unless the court appoints another person to be the We are mindful of the fact that adoption statutes,
guardian of the person or property of the children.15 being humane and salutary, hold the interests and
welfare of the child to be of paramount
It is true that when the child reaches the age of consideration. They are designed to provide homes,
emancipation — that is, when he attains the age of parental care and education for unfortunate, needy
majority or 18 years of age 16 — emancipation or orphaned children and give them the protection of
terminates parental authority over the person and society and family, as well as to allow childless
property of the child, who shall then be qualified and couples or persons to experience the joys of
responsible for all acts of civil life.17 However, parenthood and give them legally a child in the
parental authority is merely just one of the effects of person of the adopted for the manifestation of their
legal adoption. Article V of RA 8552 enumerates the natural parental instincts. Every reasonable
effects of adoption, thus: intendment should be sustained to promote and
fulfill these noble and compassionate objectives of
the law.23 But, as we have ruled in Republic v.
ARTICLE V
Vergara:24
EFFECTS OF ADOPTION
We are not unmindful of the main purpose of
SEC. 16. Parental Authority. - Except in cases
adoption statutes, which is the promotion of the
where the biological parent is the spouse of the
welfare of the children. Accordingly, the law should
adopter, all legal ties between the biological
be construed liberally, in a manner that will sustain
parent(s) and the adoptee shall be severed and the
rather than defeat said purpose. The law must also
same shall then be vested on the adopter(s).
be applied with compassion, understanding and less
severity in view of the fact that it is intended to
provide homes, love, care and education for less
fortunate children. Regrettably, the Court is not in a
position to affirm the trial court’s decision favoring
adoption in the case at bar, for the law is clear and
it cannot be modified without violating the
proscription against judicial legislation. Until
such time however, that the law on the matter is
amended, we cannot sustain the respondent-
spouses’ petition for adoption. (Emphasis supplied) 1avvphi1 .zw+

Petitioner, being married at the time the petitions for

adoption were filed, should have jointly filed the
petitions with her husband. We cannot make our
own legislation to suit petitioner.

Petitioner, in her Memorandum, insists that

subsequent events would show that joint adoption
could no longer be possible because Olario has filed
a case for dissolution of his marriage to petitioner in
the Los Angeles Superior Court.

We disagree. The filing of a case for dissolution of

the marriage between petitioner and Olario is of no
moment. It is not equivalent to a decree of
dissolution of marriage. Until and unless there is a
judicial decree for the dissolution of the marriage
between petitioner and Olario, the marriage still
subsists. That being the case, joint adoption by the
husband and the wife is required. We reiterate our
ruling above that since, at the time the petitions for
adoption were filed, petitioner was married to Olario,
joint adoption is mandatory.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition.

We AFFIRM the Decision dated 15 September 2004
of the Regional Trial Court, General Santos City,
Branch 22 in SPL. PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and
1259. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.