The Supreme Court held that an adoption decree could be annulled due to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud when the adopter failed to obtain the necessary consent from his spouse and legitimate children. This case emphasizes the importance of adhering to the legal requirements of notice and consent in adoption proceedings to protect the rights of all parties involved. The decision underscores that procedural shortcuts cannot override substantive statutory rights, especially in matters affecting family relationships and inheritance.

Adoption Secrets and Legal Rights: When Does an Adoption Decree Fall Apart?

This case revolves around the adoption of Jose Maria Jed Lemuel Gregorio and Ana Maria Regina Gregorio by Atty. Jose G. Castro. Jose was married to Rosario Mata Castro, but they were estranged. He sought to adopt Jed and Regina, whom he claimed were his illegitimate children with Lilibeth Fernandez Gregorio. Rosario and their daughter, Joanne Benedicta Charissima M. Castro, challenged the adoption, alleging fraud and lack of jurisdiction due to the failure to obtain their consent. The legal question at the heart of the case is whether the adoption decree can be annulled because of these procedural and substantive defects.

The Supreme Court addressed the requirements for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule allows a party to seek annulment of judgments or final orders if ordinary remedies are no longer available. The grounds for annulment are limited to lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud. The Court emphasized the exceptional nature of this remedy, noting that it disregards the doctrine of immutability of final judgments, which is a cornerstone of the justice system. This doctrine serves to avoid delays and put an end to legal controversies.

The Court found that the trial court did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the adoption proceedings. The Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, Republic Act No. 8552, which was in effect at the time the petition was filed, requires the consent of the adopting parent’s spouse when adopting a child born out of wedlock. Section 7 of the Act states:

ARTICLE III
ELIGIBILITY

SEC. 7. Who May Adopt. — The following may adopt:

Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:

(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or

(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, however, That the other spouse has signified, his/her consent thereto; or

(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other. . . (Emphasis supplied)

Since Jose and Rosario were still legally married, Rosario’s consent was required. The Court found that the submission of a fraudulent affidavit of consent did not satisfy this requirement. Moreover, the Act also requires the written consent of the adopter’s legitimate children who are ten years old or older, as outlined in Article III, Section 9:

SEC. 9. Whose Consent is Necessary to the Adoption. — After being properly counseled and informed of his/her right to give or withhold his/her approval of the adoption, the written consent of the following to the adoption is hereby required:

(c) The legitimate and adopted sons/daughters, ten (10) years of age or over, of the adopter(s) and adoptee, if any; (Emphasis supplied)

Joanne, being Jose and Rosario’s legitimate child and over ten years old, was required to give her written consent. However, Jose misrepresented to the trial court that he and Rosario were childless, preventing Joanne from being notified or giving her consent. Because of these deficiencies, the Court concluded that the trial court never validly acquired jurisdiction over the adoption proceedings.

Building on the issue of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court also found that extrinsic fraud was present. Extrinsic fraud prevents a party from having a fair opportunity to present their case. As the Court stated in People v. Court of Appeals and Socorro Florece:

Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in litigation committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party is prevented from fully exhibiting his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, such as by keeping him away from court, by giving him a false promise of a compromise, or where the defendant never had the knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff, or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat.

The Court identified several badges of fraud in this case. First, the adoption petition was filed in a location unrelated to any of the parties involved. Second, Jose used delayed registration to obtain fraudulent birth certificates for Jed and Regina, showing him as the father and Larry as merely the informant. Third, Jose lied to the trial court about being childless with Rosario, preventing Joanne from being notified. These actions, aimed at preventing Rosario and Joanne from participating in or opposing the adoption, constituted extrinsic fraud.

The Court distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud, explaining that intrinsic fraud relates to matters that could have been litigated during the trial, while extrinsic fraud prevents a party from participating in the proceedings altogether. As the Supreme Court pointed out:

[I]ntrinsic fraud refers to the acts of a party at a trial that prevented a fair and just determination of the case, but the difference is that the acts or things, like falsification and false testimony, could have been litigated and determined at the trial or adjudication of the case. In other words, intrinsic fraud does not deprive the petitioner of his day in court because he can guard against that kind of fraud through so many means, including a thorough trial preparation, a skillful, cross-examination, resorting to the modes of discovery, and proper scientific or forensic applications. Indeed, forgery of documents and evidence for use at the trial and perjury in court testimony have been regarded as not preventing the participation of any party in the proceedings, and are not, therefore, constitutive of extrinsic fraud.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the adoption decree. The Court emphasized that the policy of the law is clear: notice and consent are paramount. This cannot be defeated by procedural devices. When a spouse attempts to adopt a child out of wedlock, the other spouse and legitimate children must be personally notified, not merely through constructive service. This decision highlights the importance of protecting the rights of all parties in adoption proceedings and ensuring strict compliance with the law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the adoption decree could be annulled due to the adopter’s failure to obtain the necessary consent from his spouse and legitimate child, and whether this constituted lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud.
What is annulment of judgment under Rule 47?	Annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is a remedy to set aside a final judgment by the Regional Trial Court, available only when other remedies are no longer possible and the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud.
What is extrinsic fraud?	Extrinsic fraud is a fraudulent act that prevents a party from having a fair opportunity to present their case in court, such as concealing the lawsuit or providing false promises to prevent participation.
What is the consent requirement for adoption under Republic Act No. 8552?	Under Republic Act No. 8552, if a married individual seeks to adopt a child born out of wedlock, they must obtain the consent of their spouse. Additionally, the written consent of the adopter’s legitimate children aged ten or older is required.
Why was the lack of consent from Rosario and Joanne crucial in this case?	Rosario’s consent as the spouse was required for Jose to adopt his illegitimate children. Joanne’s consent, as a legitimate child over ten years old, was also necessary. The failure to obtain these consents rendered the adoption invalid.
How did the court define the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud in this case?	The court defined extrinsic fraud as actions that prevent a party from participating in the proceedings, while intrinsic fraud relates to matters that could have been litigated during the trial.
What actions by Jose were considered badges of fraud?	Filing the adoption petition in an unrelated location, using delayed registration to secure fraudulent birth certificates, and lying to the court about being childless were all considered badges of fraud.
What is the significance of personal service of summons in adoption cases?	Personal service of summons ensures that all parties with legal standing, such as the spouse and legitimate children, are properly notified of the proceedings and have the opportunity to protect their rights.
What was the outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the adoption decree, citing lack of jurisdiction and the presence of extrinsic fraud.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the legal requirements of notice and consent in adoption proceedings. It underscores the principle that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive statutory rights, especially when it comes to matters affecting family relationships and inheritance. The Court’s decision reinforces the need to protect the rights of all parties involved in adoption cases to ensure fairness and justice.

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: ROSARIO MATA CASTRO AND JOANNE BENEDICTA CHARISSIMA M. CASTRO VS. JOSE MARIA JED LEMUEL GREGORIO AND ANA MARIA REGINA GREGORIO, G.R. No. 188801, October 15, 2014