IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELE P.
LIM Section 7, Article III of RA 8552 reads “Husband and
and MICHAEL JUDE LIM
588 SCRA 98 (May 21, 2009)
FACTS: Michelle was given to the spouses Lim in 1977
while Michael was delivered in 1983. They were only
about 11 days old when they were given to the
spouses Lim who had them registered as if they were
their own children. They were reared and cared for
and were sent to exclusive schools and used the
surname “Lim” in all their school records and
documents. In 1988, the husband died and the
surviving spouse entered into another marriage with
an American citizen, Olario. Monina (the surviving
spouse) then filed two separate petitions to adopt the
children by availing of the amnesty given under RA
8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 to those
individuals who simulated the birth of the child. Both
children, who are already of legal age, gave their
consent including Michelle’s husband to the
adoption. Olario likewise executed an affidavit of
consent for the adoption of Michelle and Michael.
The lower court denied the petition because
inasmuch as Monina has remarried, her petition
should have been jointly filed with her new husband.
Petitioner’s Contention (Monina P. Lim)
Petitioner contends that the rule on joint adoption
must be relaxed because it is the duty of the court and
the State to protect the paramount interest and
welfare of the child to be adopted. Petitioner argues
that the legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" is not
applicable to adoption cases. She argues that joint
parental authority is not necessary in this case since,
at the time the petitions were filed, Michelle was 25
years old and already married, while Michael was
already 18 years of age. Parental authority is not
anymore necessary since they have been
emancipated having attained the age of majority.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner, who has remarried,
can singly adopt.
RULING
It is undisputed that at the time the petitions for
adoption were filed, petitioner had already
remarried. She filed the petition by herself, without
being joined by her husband Olario. The law is explicit.
wife shall jointly adopt subject to the exceptions. The
word “shall” means that joint adoption by the
husband and the wife is mandatory. This in
consonance with the concept of joint parental
authority over the child which is the ideal situation.
As the child to be adopted is elevated to the level of a
legitimate child, it is but natural to require the
spouses to adopt jointly. The rule is to insure harmony
between the spouses.
Neither would the exceptions apply. 1st the children
are not the legitimate children of the petitioner or of
her husband; 2nd the children are not the illegitimate
children of the petitioner ; and 3rd, petitioner and
Olario are not legally separated from each other.
There are also certain requirements that Olario must
comply being an American citizen. None of the
qualifications were shown and proved during the trial.
Neither are the requirements on residency and
certification waivable as the children are not relatives
within the 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity of
petitioner or Olario.
It is true that when the child reaches the age of
emancipation- that is, when he attains the age of
majority or 18 years of age-emancipation terminates
parental authority over the person and property of
the child, who shall then be qualified and responsible
for all acts of civil life. However, parental authority is
merely just one of the effects of legal adoption.
Even if emancipation terminates parental authority,
the adoptee is still considered the legitimate child of
the adopter with all the rights of a legitimate child as
provided for under Article 174 of the Family Code.
Conversely, the adoptive parents shall, with respect
to the adopted child, enjoy all the benefits to which
biological parents are entitled such as support and
successional rights.
While petitioner insists that joint adoption is no
longer possible because Olario has filed a case for
dissolution of his marriage to petitioner before the
Los Angeles Superior Court, the filing of said case is of
no moment. It is not equivalent to a decree of
dissolution of marriage. until and unless there is a
judicial decree for the dissolution of the marriage
between Monina and Olario, the marriage still
subsists.