The Supreme Court ruled that adopters cannot rescind an adoption decree after Republic Act No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998) took effect, which removed adopters’ right to rescind. This decision affirms that the welfare of the adopted child is paramount and that adoption, once legally finalized, should provide stability and security for the child’s future.

From Parent to Estranged: Can a Change in Law Revoke an Adopter’s Right to Rescind?

This case revolves around Isabelita S. Lahom’s attempt to rescind the adoption of Jose Melvin Sibulo, whom she and her late husband had legally adopted in 1972. Years later, citing indifference and strained relations, Isabelita sought to revoke the adoption. However, the legal landscape had shifted with the enactment of Republic Act No. 8552, which specifically removed the adopter’s right to rescind an adoption decree. The central legal question is whether this new law could retroactively extinguish Isabelita’s right to rescind the adoption, a right she claimed had vested under the previous laws.

The petitioner, Isabelita Lahom, argued that her right to rescind the adoption had already vested under the Civil Code and the Family Code, which were in effect when the adoption was initially granted. She contended that the new law, R.A. No. 8552, should not retroactively apply to her case, as it would deprive her of a previously existing right. The respondent, Jose Melvin Sibulo (Lahom), countered that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that the petitioner had no cause of action because R.A. No. 8552 had removed the adopter’s right to rescind.

The Supreme Court emphasized the concept of a **vested right**, defining it as a present fixed interest protected against arbitrary state action. It stated that rights are considered vested when the right to enjoyment is a present interest, absolute, unconditional, and perfect. The Court referenced previous cases, such as Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Republic vs. Miller, to illustrate that the applicable law is generally the one in force at the time the action was commenced.

However, the Court distinguished the present case, noting that Isabelita filed the action to revoke the adoption after R.A. No. 8552 had already taken effect. Therefore, the new law, which had abrogated the adopter’s right to rescind, applied. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that even before the passage of R.A. No. 8552, an action to set aside an adoption was subject to a five-year prescriptive period under Rule 100 of the Rules of Court. Failure to exercise this right within the prescribed period would result in its loss.

The Court also underscored that the privilege to adopt is not an innate right but one created by statute, subject to state regulation in the best interest and welfare of the child. **A right of action given by statute may be taken away at any time before it has been exercised.** In this case, because Isabelita had not initiated her action to rescind before the new law took effect, she no longer possessed that right.

While the ruling might seem harsh, the Supreme Court noted that even though adopters cannot rescind adoptions, they still have legal avenues to address issues with an adopted child, such as disinheritance for valid legal reasons. The court emphasized that although the adopter is barred from severing the legal ties of adoption, the adopter can always, for valid reasons, cause the forfeiture of certain benefits otherwise accruing to an undeserving child.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether an adopter could rescind an adoption decree after the enactment of Republic Act No. 8552, which eliminated the adopter’s right to rescind.
What is a vested right?	A vested right is a present, fixed interest protected by due process against arbitrary state action. It’s an absolute and unconditional entitlement.
What did R.A. No. 8552 change regarding adoption?	R.A. No. 8552, also known as the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, removed the right of adopters to rescind an adoption decree. It granted the adoptee the sole right to sever legal ties.
Did the adopter in this case file the rescission before or after R.A. No. 8552?	The adopter, Isabelita Lahom, filed her action to rescind the adoption after R.A. No. 8552 had already come into force.
What does the Supreme Court say about the adopter’s ability to disinherit the adopted child?	Even though adopters can’t rescind adoption under R.A. 8552, they still have the right to disinherit an undeserving child through a will, denying them their legitime and excluding them from the disposable portion of the estate.
What law governs if an adoption proceeding starts before the new law takes effect?	In general, the law in effect when the adoption proceeding commences governs the case. This means that those laws at the time will determine the rights and procedures.
What is the prescriptive period under the old law?	Under Rule 100 of the Rules of Court, the adopter has to file the petition to set aside the adoption within five years from the time the cause giving rise to the rescission or revocation of the same took place.
Is adoption considered a right?	The Supreme Court emphasizes that the privilege to adopt is not naturally innate or fundamental but rather a right merely created by statute, governed by the state’s determination of the best interest and welfare of the child.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the shift in adoption law towards prioritizing the rights and welfare of the adopted child. While the law eliminates the adopter’s right to rescind, it provides other means to address issues with an adopted child. This ruling reinforces the stability and security of adoption, ensuring that once an adoption is legally finalized, it remains secure and in the best interest of the child.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ISABELITA S. LAHOM vs. JOSE MELVIN SIBULO, G.R. No. 143989, July 14, 2003