866 Phil. 920; 117 OG No. 9, 2565 (March 1, 2021)
HERNANDO, J.:
WHEREFORE, the Court directs the transmittal of a copy of the petition and its annexes, duly certified to be a true copy, to the Inter-Country Adoption Board for appropriate action. Consistent with Rule 39, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the branch clerk of court shall comply with this Order upon the expiration of the period to appeal from this Order if no appeal has been duly perfected.On October 6, 2017, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration (First Motion for Reconsideration) praying for respondent Judge to: (a) reconsider and set aside the Order dated September 11, 2017; (b) give petitioners time to confer with the ICAB and submit a best interest assessment; and (c) allow the Deposition through Written Interrogatories to proceed. Said Motion for Reconsideration was denied by respondent Judge in its Order[15] dated June 19, 2018. Petitioners received a copy of said Order on July 2, 2018.[16]
This Order amounts to a case disposal. The October 27 and November 24, 2017 settings are CANCELLED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[14]
2. Very recently, it has come to the attention of the Petitioners that the Supreme Court and ICAB entered into an agreement regarding the treatment of foreigners who reside in the Philippines and file a petition for adoption through the courts. Attached as Annex "A" is a copy of the DSWD Memorandum dated 1 June 2018,[18] which refers to this agreement.
3. Accordingly, in reference to OCA Circular 213-2017, foreigners who reside in the Philippines should secure a certification from their Foreign Adoption Agencies and/or Embassies that since they are not residents in their countries and they are residing in the Philippines, the said agencies could not issue the documents required by the domestic courts in support of their Petition for domestic adoption. "If ever their cases will be endorsed to ICAB by the court, ICAB will file a manifestation on this matter so that the domestic adoption could be pursued."
4. In light of this supervening event, Petitioners pray for a reconsideration of the Order dated 19 June 2018 and that they be given thirty (30) days from notice to secure the necessary certification.[19] (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the petitioners alleged that they received the 19 June 2018 Order, which denied their first Motion for Reconsideration, on 2 July 2018. Following the express provision of Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the petitioners had 60 days from 2 July 2018, or until 31 August 2018, within which to file a petition for certiorari. Instead, the petitioners filed a Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration. Only upon the denial of their second Motion for Reconsideration did the petitioners initiate the certiorari proceeding. Considering that the instant Petition for Certiorari was filed only on 12 September 2018, this Court cannot give due course thereto for being filed out of time.[23]Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration. They argued that the transmittal of the copies of the records of the case to the ICAB was in the nature of an interlocutory order, and not a final decision; and as such, a second Motion for Reconsideration was permissible.[24] However, in the CA Resolution dated June 19, 2019, it denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
Rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. If the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than to promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from their operation. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with the procedural rules, even the most mandatory in character, mindful of the duty to reconcile the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard.Our recent ruling in Tanenglian v. Lorenzo is instructive:
We have not been oblivious to or unmindful of the extraordinary situations that merit liberal application of the Rules, allowing us, depending on the circumstances, to set aside technical infirmities and give due course to the appeal. In cases where we dispense with the technicalities, we do not mean to undermine the force and effectivity of the periods set by law. In those rare cases where we did not stringently apply the procedural rules, there always existed a clear need to prevent the commission of a grave injustice. Our judicial system and the courts have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict enforcement of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for the just and proper disposition of his cause. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted )In addition, We find that the petitioners did not sleep on their rights and simply allowed the 60-day period from the denial of the First Motion for Reconsideration to lapse. Rather, petitioners filed the Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC in order to secure the necessary certification from their Foreign Adoption Agencies and/or Embassies which would reflect that since they are not residents in their countries and are residing in the Philippines, the said agencies could not issue the documents required by the domestic courts in support of their Petition for Adoption. The foregoing effort of petitioners was not meant to cause a delay on the proceeding but to actually assist the court in the speedy disposal of the case.
63. x x x By ordering the transmittal of the case to the ICAB, respondent deprived petitioners of the opportunity to present evidence to establish the relevant U.S. law, their capacity to adopt under such law, and the adoptee's capacity to immigrate to the U.S. as petitioners' legitimate child.A comparative review of the relevant provisions on the Domestic Adoption and Inter-Country Adoption particularly on those who are qualified to adopt and where to file the application for adoption shows the following:
64. Petitioners have already gone as far as securing authenticated copies of the relevant California laws on adoption and U.S. immigration laws, as well as deposing through written interrogatories an expert witness. If the proceedings before the respondent court are allowed to take its due course petitioners will be able to formally offer documentary and testimonial evidence to substantially comply with the certification requirement.[31]
Domestic Adoption | Inter-Country Adoption |
SECTION 4 . Who may adopt. - The following may adopt : (1) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights, of good moral character, has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; who is emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years older then the adoptee, and who is in a position to support and care for his children in keeping with the means of the family. The requirements of a 16-year difference between the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived when the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee or is the spouse of the adoptee's parent; (2) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above-stated for Filipino nationals: Provided, that his country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines, that he has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the petition for adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered, that he has been certified by his diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate government agency to have the legal capacity to adopt in his country, and that his government allows the adoptee to enter his country as his adopted child . Provided, further , That the requirements on residency and certification of the alien's qualification to adopt in his country may be waived for the following: (i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity or (ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino spouse; or (iii) one who is married to a Filipino Citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his spouse a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse. (3) The guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the guardianship and clearance of his financial accountabilities. Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:
In case husband and wife jointly adopt or one spouse adopts the illegitimate child of the other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses. (Rule on Adoption, A.M. No. 02-6-SC [August 22, 2002]); See also Section 7, Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, Republic Act No. 8552 [February 25, 1998]) | SECTION 9. Who May Adopt. - An alien or a Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad may file an application for inter-country adoption of a Filipino child if he/she: a) is at least twenty - seven (27) years of age and at least sixteen (16) years older than the child to be adopted, at the time of application unless the adopter is the parent by nature of the child to be adopted or the spouse of such parent; b)if married his/her spouse must jointly file for the adoption; c) has the capacity to act and assume all rights and responsibilities of parental authority under his national laws, and has undergone the appropriate counseling from an accredited counselor in his / her country; d) has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; e) is eligible to adopt under his/her national law; f) is in a position to provide the proper care and support and to give the necessary moral values and example to all his children, including the child to be adopted; g) agrees to uphold the basic rights of the child as embodied under Philippine laws, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to abide by the rules and regulations issued to implement the provisions of this Act; h) comes from a country with whom the Philippines has diplomatic relations and whose government maintains a similarly authorized and accredited agency and that adoption is allowed under is/her national laws; and i) possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided herein and in other applicable Philippine laws. (Emphasis supplied) (Inter-Counrty Adoption Act of 1995, Republic Act No. 8043, [June 7, 1995) |
SECTION 6. Venue. - The petition for adoption shall be filed with the Family Court of the province or city where the prospective adoptive parents reside. (Rule on Adoption, A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC [August 22, 2002]) | SECTION 28. Where to File Petition.- A verified petition to adopt a Filipino child may be filed by a foreign national or Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad with the Family Court having jurisdiction over the place where the child resides or may be found |
It may be filed directly with the Inter-Country Adoption Board. (Rule on Adoption A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC [August 22, 2002]) (See also, Section 10 of Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995, Republic Act No. 8043 [June 7, 1995]) |
SECTION 32. Duty of Court . - The court, after finding that the petition is sufficient in form and substance and a proper case for inter-country adoption, shall immediately transmit the petition to the Inter-Country Adoption Board for appropriate action. (Rule on Adoption, A. M. No. 02-6-0 2-SC, August 22, 2002)We note that petitioners, who are both American citizens, have been residing and have been gainfully employed in the Philippines since the year 2007 (in the case of petitioner Park) and since 2009 (in the case of petitioner Lee), and are thus living in the Philippines for at least three continuous years prior to the filing of the petition for adoption, as required by the Domestic Adoption Act.
This is to share with you the agreements between the Supreme Court and the Inter-country Adoption Board (ICAB), relative to cases of foreign adoptive families who are habitually or permanently residing in the Philippines.
The Supreme Court en banc in OCA Circular 213-2017 states that foreigners who have filed an application for adoption with the assistance and approval of the DSWD MUST attach the following to their petition to the courts:
- A Certification Declaring a Child as Legally Available for Adoption (CDCLAA);
- Home Study Report to be prepared by an ICAB accredited Foreign Adoption Agency, if not possible/available, a Certification regarding the same should be executed by the Central Authority or Embassy of the receiving country.
- A Certification regarding the alien's legal capacity to adopt and that his/her government allows the adoptee to enter his/her country as his/her adopted child. If not possible, a Certification should be executed by the Central Authority or Embassy of the receiving country.
Thus, even if the instant adoption proceeding would be referred to the ICAB, as what the RTC did, there is still a high probability that the ICAB will file a manifestation so that the domestic adoption before the trial court could be pursued, considering the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the referral to the ICAB would only cause a delay in the adoption proceedings, a matter that would be clearly prejudicial to the interest of the adoptee and the petitioners.This implies that these foreigners should still secure a certification from their Foreign Adoption Agencies and/or Embassies that since they are not residents in their countries and habitually residing in the Philippines, the said agencies could not issue the documents required by the domestic courts in support to their Petitions filed for domestic adoption. If ever their cases will be endorsed to ICAB by the courts, ICAB will file a manifestation on this matter so that the domestic adoption could be pursued. (Emphasis supplied)
Liberal Construction of AdoptionAccordingly, We find that petitioners' Petition for Adoption was appropriately filed under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 which the appropriate Family Court or RTC can properly take cognizance of.
Statutes In Favor Of Adoption—
It is a settled rule that adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, should be liberally construed to carry out the beneficent purposes of adoption. The interests and welfare of the adopted child are of primary and paramount consideration, hence, every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate objectives of the law.
Lastly, Art. 10 of the Ne w Civil Code provides that:
"In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail."
This provision, according to the Code Commission, "is necessary so that it may tip the scales in favor of right and justice when the law is doubtful or obscure. It will strengthen the determination of the courts to avoid an injustice which may apparently be authorized by some way of interpreting the law." (Citations omitted)