Lahom v. Sibulo, G.R. No.
143989 July 14, 2003
FACTS:
In December of 1999, Mrs. Lahom commenced a petition to rescind the decree of adoption before a
court.
"7. That x x x despite the proddings and pleadings of said spouses, respondent refused to change his
surname from Sibulo to Lahom, to the frustrations of petitioner particularly her husband until the latter
died, and even before his death he had made known his desire to revoke respondent's adoption, but was
prevented by petitioner's supplication, however with his further request upon petitioner to give to charity
whatever properties or interest may pertain to respondent in the future.
xxx xxx xxx
"10. That respondent continued using his surname Sibulo to the utter disregard of the feelings of herein
petitioner, and his records with the Professional Regulation Commission showed his name as Jose Melvin
M. Sibulo originally issued in 1978 until the present, and in all his dealings and activities in connection
with his practice of his profession, he is Jose Melvin M. Sibulo.
xxx xxx xxx
"13. That herein petitioner being a widow, and living alone in this city with only her household helps to
attend to her, has yearned for the care and show of concern from a son, but respondent remained
indifferent and would only come to Naga to see her once a year.
"14. That for the last three or four years, the medical check-up of petitioner in Manila became more
frequent in view of a leg ailment, and those were the times when petitioner would need most the care
and support from a love one, but respondent all the more remained callous and utterly indifferent
towards petitioner which is not expected of a son.
"15. That herein respondent has recently been jealous of petitioner's nephews and nieces whenever they
would find time to visit her, respondent alleging that they were only motivated by their desire for some
material benefits from petitioner.
"16. That in view of respondent's insensible attitude resulting in a strained and uncomfortable
relationship between him and petitioner, the latter has suffered wounded feelings, knowing that after all
respondent's only motive to his adoption is his expectancy of his alleged rights over the properties of
herein petitioner and her late husband, clearly shown by his recent filing of Civil Case No. 99-4463 for
partition against petitioner, thereby totally eroding her love and affection towards respondent, rendering
the decree of adoption, considering respondent to be the child of petitioner, for all legal purposes, has
been negated for which reason there is no more basis for its existence, hence this petition for
revocation,"1
Prior to the institution of the case, specifically on 22 March 1998, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8552, also known
as the Domestic Adoption Act, went into effect. The new statute deleted from the law the right of
adopters to rescind a decree of adoption.
Section 19 of Article VI of R.A. No. 8552 now reads:
"SEC. 19. Grounds for Rescission of Adoption. — Upon petition of the adoptee, with the
assistance of the Department if a minor or if over eighteen (18) years of age but is
incapacitated, as guardian/counsel, the adoption may be rescinded on any of the
following grounds committed by the adopter(s): (a) repeated physical and verbal
maltreatment by the adopter(s) despite having undergone counseling; (b) attempt on the
life of the adoptee; (c) sexual assault or violence; or (d) abandonment and failure to
comply with parental obligations.
Jose Melvin moved for the dismissal of the petition, contending principally that the petitioner had no
cause of action in view of the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 8552.
The RTC dismissed such petition.
CA affirmed.
ISSUE: WON the adopter can rescind an adoption decree under R.A. No. 8552.
RULING: NO.
Petitioner, however, would insist that R.A. No. 8552 should not adversely affect her right to annul the
adoption decree, nor deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction to hear the case, both being vested under
the Civil Code and the Family Code, the laws then in force.
It was months after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552 that herein petitioner filed an action to revoke the
decree of adoption granted in 1975. By then, the new law, had already abrogated and repealed the right
of an adopter under the Civil Code and the Family Code to rescind a decree of adoption.
Consistently with its earlier pronouncements, the Court should now hold that the action for rescission of
the adoption decree, having been initiated by petitioner after R.A. No. 8552 had come into force, no
longer could be pursued.
While R.A. No. 8552 has unqualifiedly withdrawn from an adopter a consequential right to rescind the
adoption decree even in cases where the adoption might clearly turn out to be undesirable, it remains,
nevertheless, the bounden duty of the Court to apply the law. Dura lex sed lex would be the hackneyed
truism that those caught in the law have to live with. It is still noteworthy, however, that an adopter,
while barred from severing the legal ties of adoption, can always for valid reasons cause the forfeiture of
certain benefits otherwise accruing to an undeserving child. For instance, upon the grounds recognized by
law, an adopter may deny to an adopted child his legitime and, by a will and testament, may freely
exclude him from having a share in the disposable portion of his estate.
