#rule100

[call-me-catalysis]

ANTONIO RAGUDO and EUGENIA PAREDES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. EMELITA R. PASNO, represented by her Father, ENRIQUE R. PASNO as her guardian ad-litem, Defendant-Appellee.

G.R. No. L-16642 April 18, 1962

BENGZON, C.J.:

 FACTS:

Spouses Antonio Ragudo and Eugenia Paderes filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City to annual the order of the justice of the peace of Tayabas, Quezon, declaring Emelita Pasno, their adopted child, which order was already final.

The spouses alleged substantially that they had been induced by Emelita’s parents to believe that the adoption proceeding was merely for the purpose of transferring to 8-year old Emelita some guerilla educational benefits.

Plaintiffs further alleged that the adoption had been secured through fraud and misrepresentation used by defendant Enrique Pasno, father of Emelita, upon the plaintiffs, as the latter never intended to adopt Emelita as their child.

The defendants moved for dismissal of the complaint, arguing that as the justice of the peace court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of First Instance to take cognizance of adoption cases, the latter has no jurisdiction to interfere or annul the order issued in said adoption proceeding.

The judge dismissed the case upholding the defendant’s contention. Hence, this appeal.

 ISSUE:

Whether or not the contention of the defendants should be sustained.

 HELD:

No. there is no question that the Justice of the Peace Court and the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction over adoption cases. However, this was not an adoption case, but rather a civil action to annul an Order of a Justice of Peace Court, allegedly obtained through fraud. In such action, Justice of the Peace Courts cannot take cognizance. It falls within the general jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

Hence, the appealed order was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

[call-me-catalysis]

RULE 100 RESCISSION AND REVOCATION OF ADOPTION

Rescission relates only as to the date of the judgment. Hence, vested rights prior to rescission should be respected. (Sec. 20, Art. VI, R.A. No. 8552) 

Applicability: The grounds for revocation of an adoption refer only to an adoption validly decreed, not to an adoption void from the beginning because tainted with fraud. 

Section 1. Who may file petition; grounds 

Adoptee

—Over 18 years of age; or 

—If still a minor with assistance of DSWD. 

Guardian or counsel, if over 18 but incapacitated 

Grounds for rescission or revocation (RASA): 

— Repeated physical violence and verbal maltreatment by the adopter despite having undergone counseling; 

— Attempt on the life of the adoptee;  

— Sexual assault or violence; or 

— Abandonment or failure to comply with parental obligations 

Section 2. Order to answer.

— Adverse party shall file his answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt of order of court requiring him to answer. (Sec. 22) 

— The court does not have jurisdiction to annul after the period fixed by the Rule, a decree of adoption. For reasons of public order, judicial litigations must have an end; hence, decisions must not be changed after the expiration of the period, it being beyond the jurisdiction or control of courts. 

Section 3. Judgment 

Effects of Judgment of Rescission: 

— Parental authority of biological parent or legal custody of DSWD will be restored; 

— Reciprocal rights of adoptee and adopter will be extinguished; 

— Vested rights acquired prior to judicial rescission shall be respected; 

— Successional rights shall revert to its status prior to adoption as of the date of judgment of judicial rescission; 

— Adoptee shall use the name stated in his original birth or foundling certificate; 

— Civil registrar will reinstate his original birth or foundling certificate.  

Agreement between the adopter and adopted: A subsequent agreement between them nor between adopter and natural parents cannot by itself effectuate the revocation of adoption. 

Collateral attack on the validity of adoption: The settled rule is that a finding that the requisite jurisdictional fact exists, whether erroneous or not, cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding, for a presumption arises in such cases where the validity of the judgment is thus attacked that the necessary jurisdictional facts were proven.  

Section 5. Time within which to file petition 

Period within which to file verified petition 

— Within five (5) years from reaching the age of majority or after recovery from incompetency. (Sec. 21)

[call-me-catalysis]

ANTONIO RAGUDO and EUGENIA PAREDES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. EMELITA R. PASNO, represented by her Father, ENRIQUE R. PASNO as her guardian ad-litem, Defendant-Appellee.

G.R. No. L-16642, April 18, 1962 

Joaquin M. Trinidad for plaintiffs-appellants. Parentela and Parentela for defendant-appellee.

BENGZON, C.J.:

Appeal from an order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint.

In the Quezon Court of First Instance, the spouses Antonio Ragudo and Eugenia Paderes filed this complaint on October 12, 1959, to annul the order of the justice of the peace of Tayabas, same province, declaring Emelita R. Pasno their adopted child, which order, dated July 31, 1959, was already final. The spouses alleged substantially that they had been induced by Emelita's parents to believe that the adoption proceeding in the justice of the peace court, "was merely for the purpose of transferring to 8-year old Emelita some guerilla educational benefits available to Antonio Ragudo."Plaintiffs further alleged that the adoption had been secured "thru fraud and misrepresentation used by defendant Enrique Pasno (father of Emelita) upon the plaintiffs, as the latter never intended to adopt" Emelita "as their child".

Instead of answering, the defendants moved for dismissal of the complaint, arguing that as the justice of the peace court has concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of first instance to take cognizance of adoption cases, the latter has no jurisdiction to interfere or annul the order issued in said adoption proceeding.

Upholding defendants' contention, the judge dismissed the case. Hence, this appeal.

There is no question that a justice of the peace court has jurisdiction over adoption cases. (Republic Acts 643 and 644). Courts of First Instance also have jurisdiction over the same.

But this is not an adoption case. This is a civil action to annul an order of a justice of the peace court, allegedly obtained thru fraud. It is based on sec. 43 of Act 190.1 Of such action, justice of the peace courts can not take cognizance. And it falls within the general jurisdiction of courts of first instance.

It is argued for the appellees that under Art. 348 of the New Civil Code, fraud is not one of the grounds for revocation of an adoption. The appellants reply, quite correctly, that those grounds refer only to an adoption validly decreed - not to an adoption void from the beginning because tainted with fraud. Anyway, this is an argument that should be submitted when the case is considered on the merits.

The appealed order is reversed and the case is hereby remanded for further proceedings.