Adoption in the Philippines: Consent of Adult Children and Jurisdictional Requirements

The Supreme Court recently clarified a critical requirement in Philippine adoption proceedings: the written consent of the adopter's legitimate children aged ten and above is mandatory, and failure to serve summons upon them renders the adoption judgment void. In Nena Bagcat-Gullas v. Joselito F. Gullas, et al. (G.R. No. 264146, August 7, 2023), the Court affirmed that courts must strictly comply with jurisdictional requirements in adoption cases, even if this means setting aside a decision that had already become final.

The Facts of the Case

In May 2016, Nena Bagcat-Gullas and her husband Jose filed a petition to adopt a minor named Jo Anne, whose biological mother had abandoned her. The couple had supported and cared for the child as their own. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City granted the adoption in May 2018, and the decision became final and executory in July 2018.

However, Jose's three legitimate children from a prior relationship later sought to intervene. They argued that as the adopter's legitimate children, their consent to the adoption was required by law, and they had never been served with summons. The RTC agreed, vacated its earlier decision, and ordered summons to be served upon them.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the adoption petition when the adopter's legitimate children were not impleaded and not personally served with summons. A related issue was whether the doctrine of immutability of judgment should bar the reopening of the case.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts' rulings. The Court emphasized that under Section 9(c) of Republic Act No. 8552 (the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998), the written consent of the adopter's legitimate and adopted sons and daughters, ten years of age or over, is required for adoption to prosper.

Citing Castro v. Gregorio (745 Phil. 523 [2014]), the Court explained that the consent of the adopter's other children ensures harmony among prospective siblings and puts them on notice that they will share their parent's love, care, and future legitimes with another person. The Court stressed that personal service of summons must be effected on the spouse and all legitimate children—constructive notice is not enough.

The Court also addressed the immutability of judgments doctrine. While final judgments are generally immutable, a void judgment is an exception. Since the respondents were indispensable parties who were never served with summons, the RTC never validly acquired jurisdiction. The resulting judgment was void and could be attacked at any time.

The Affidavit of Consent Issue

The petitioners argued that the respondents had already executed an Affidavit of Consent to the adoption. However, the Court of Appeals found the affidavit suspect—the notarial register showed a different person's details under the same entry number. The Supreme Court declined to review this factual finding, noting that the Court is not a trier of facts in Rule 45 petitions.

Practical Takeaways

• Consent is mandatory: Before filing for adoption, ensure that all legitimate children of the adopter who are ten years old or above execute their written consent. Without it, the adoption cannot prosper.
• Personal service of summons is required: Do not rely on publication or constructive notice for indispensable parties. The court must personally serve summons on the adopter's legitimate children.
• Void judgments never become final: A judgment rendered without jurisdiction over indispensable parties is void and can be challenged even after it appears to have become final and executory.
• Verify notarized documents: An affidavit of consent that is not genuinely notarized will not satisfy the legal requirement.
• Note the new law: Republic Act No. 11642 (Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act) has transferred domestic adoption proceedings to the administrative process under the National Authority for Child Care. Pending judicial petitions may be withdrawn to avail of the new process.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.