Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92326, January 24, 1992

Ponente: REGALADO, J.

Facts:

On February 2, 1988, Zenaida Corteza Bobiles filed a petition to adopt Jason Condat, then 6 yr old and who had been living with her family since he was 4 months old, before the RTC of Legaspi City. Zenaida is married to Dioscoro Bobiles.

RTC granted the petition, which CA subsequently affirmed. Hence this petition by the OSG.

SCENARIO: When the petition was filed, applicable law was PD No. 603, the Child and Youth Welfare Code. Under said code, a petition for adoption may be filed by either of the spouses or by both of them.

After RTC rendered its decision,  the Family Code, took effect on August 3, 1988. Under the said new law, joint adoption by husband and wife is mandatory.

OSG Arguments:

•   FC must be applied retroactively to the petition filed by Mrs. Bobiles, as the latter did not acquire a vested right to adopt Jason Condat by the mere filing of her petition for adoption. Hence...

Petition for adoption should be dismissed outright for it was filed solely by private respondent without joining her husband, in violation of A185 of the FC which requires joint adoption by the spouses.

•     Assuming arguendo that FC is not applicable, CA should have modified the trial court's decision by granting the adoption in favor of private respondent Zenaida C. Bobiles only, her husband not being a petitioner.

------------------------------------------------

Issue 1 of 2:  WON FC should be applied retroactively as no vested rights would be impaired in doing so.

Held: No.

Under the CYWC, respondent had the right to file a petition for adoption by herself, without joining her husband therein. When Mrs. Bobiles filed her petition, she was exercising her explicit and unconditional right under said law. Upon her filing thereof, her right to file such petition alone and to have the same proceed to final adjudication, in accordance with the law in force at the time, was already vested and cannot be prejudiced or impaired by the enactment of the FC.

The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. Such jurisdiction of a court, whether in criminal or civil cases, once it attaches cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events.

Yes, A185 of the FC is remedial in nature, and procedural statutes are ordinarily accorded a retrospective construction. However, they will not be so applied as to defeat procedural steps completed before their enactment.

Issue 2 of 2: WON the petition for adoption should have been granted in favor of Zenaida only.

HELD: NO.

Although Dioscoro Bobiles was not named as one of the petitioners in the petition for adoption filed by his wife, his affidavit of consent, attached to the petition as Annex "B" and expressly made an integral part thereof, shows that he himself actually joined his wife in adopting the child.

The pertinent parts of his written consent read as follows: 

xxx          xxx          xxx

2.            That my wife, ZENAIDA O. CORTEZA BOBILES and I mutually desire to adopt as our child, a boy named JASON CONDAT, still a minor being six (6) years old, likewise residing at 18 C. Imperial Street, Legaspi City, Albay, also in the Philippines;

3.            That we are filing the corresponding Petition for Adoption of said minor child, JASON CONDAT, before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations court, now the Regional Trial Court in Legaspi City, Albay in the Philippines;

4.            That I, Dioscoro C. Bobiles as the husband and father, am giving my lawful consent to this adoption of said minor child, JASON CONDAT;

5.            That further, my wife ZENAIDA O. CORTEZA BOBILES, and I have continuously reared and cared for this minor child, JASON CONDAT since birth;

6.            That as a result thereof, my wife and I have developed a kind of maternal and paternal love for the boy as our very own, exercising therein the care, concern and diligence of a good father toward him;

7.            That I am executing this document, an AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT for whatever it is worth in the premises as to the matter of adoption of this minor child, JASON CONDAT, by my wife ZENAIDA O. CORTEZA BOBILES and by me, DIOSCORO C. BOBILES, in any court of justice;

xxx          xxx          xxx

The foregoing declarations, and his subsequent confirmatory testimony in open court, are sufficient to make him a co-petitioner. Under the circumstances then obtaining, and by reason of his foreign residence, he must have yielded to the legal advice that an affidavit of consent on his part sufficed to make him a party to the petition. This is evident from the text of his affidavit. Punctiliousness in language and pedantry in the formal requirements should yield to and be eschewed in the higher considerations of substantial justice. The future of an innocent child must not be compromised by arbitrary insistence of rigid adherence to procedural rules on the form of pleadings.

DECISION: Petition denied.

An audio version of this digest is available at YouTube. Click this link to listen