THE Supreme Court recently ruled that petitions for adoption should have the consent of the adopters’ children who are 10 years or older, for the adoption to be valid.
“Consent of the adopter’s other children is necessary as it ensures harmony among the prospective siblings. It also sufficiently puts the other children on notice that they will have to share their parent’s love and care… with another person,” the Court ruled in a decision promulgated Aug. 7 and made public on Dec. 28.
It reiterated the Court’s ruling rendered in 2014.
The decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh denied the petition filed by the adopter, and instead, it affirmed the June 22, 2021 decision and the Sept. 6, 2022 resolution of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the revised ruling of the regional trial court.
The case arose from the petition by a mother who filed a petition for the adoption of a minor who had been abandoned by her biological mother.
In May 2016, the adopter and her husband filed before the RTC a petition for adoption and correction of entries in the birth record of Jo.
Initially, the RTC granted the adoption petition. Later, the trial court set aside its ruling when the legitimate children of Jose told the court that they are indispensable parties in the adoption case being the children of the adopter.
The mother opposed the summons issued by the trial court on the three legitimate children of her husband Jose. When the RTC denied the opposition and its ruling was affirmed by the CA, the adopter elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
In dismissing the petition, the SC emphasized that Section 9(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8552, the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, is clear that the written consent of the adopter’s legitimate children aged at least 10 years old is required for the adoption to be valid.
The Court stressed that personal service of summons on the legitimate children is needed to ensure that their substantive rights are protected. Constructive notice does not suffice, it also said.
The tribunal found that as the respondents, the three legitimate children of the adopter were all over 10 years old at the time of the adoption proceedings, their written consent was necessary.
As legitimate children of one of the adopters, named Jose, the three legitimate children are thus indispensable parties to the petition.
Since the three legitimate children were not impleaded, and absent the service of summons upon them, the judgment previously rendered by the RTC granting the adoption is void, the Supreme Court held.