AI-generated
Updated 3rd February 2025
In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, et al.
Monina P. Lim sought to adopt two children she and her deceased spouse had raised as their own after simulating their births. The Regional Trial Court dismissed her petitions because she remarried and failed to file jointly with her new husband, as required by RA 8552. The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that joint adoption by spouses is mandatory unless exceptions apply.

Primary Holding

Married individuals must adopt jointly under RA 8552; exceptions do not apply here, so the petitions were correctly dismissed.

Background

Monina and her late husband Primo Lim raised three abandoned children (including Michelle and Michael) as their own, simulating their births. After Primo’s death, Monina remarried an American citizen, Angel Olario. She later sought to legitimize the children’s status through adoption under RA 8552’s amnesty provision for simulated births.

History

  • April 24, 2002: Petitions for adoption filed in RTC General Santos City.

  • September 15, 2004: RTC dismissed petitions for lack of joint filing with Monina’s new husband.

  • June 16, 2005: Motion for reconsideration denied.

  • May 21, 2009: Supreme Court affirmed dismissal.

Facts

  • 1. Monina and Primo Lim raised Michelle (born 1977) and Michael (born 1983) as their own children despite no biological relation.
  • 2. Primo died in 1998; Monina remarried Angel Olario in 2000.
  • 3. Petitions for adoption were filed in 2002 when Michelle was 25 (married) and Michael was 18.
  • 4. Olario consented but did not join the petitions.
  • 5. DSWD certified both children as abandoned.

Arguments of the Petitioners

  • 1. Joint adoption rules should be relaxed for the children’s welfare.
  • 2. Parental authority was unnecessary since the adoptees were emancipated.
  • 3. Olario’s consent sufficed without his participation.

Arguments of the Respondents

  • 1. RA 8552 mandates joint adoption by spouses unless exceptions apply.
  • 2. Olario, as a foreigner, did not meet RA 8552’s residency and certification requirements.
  • 3. Exceptions for legitimate/illegitimate children or legal separation were inapplicable.

Issues

  • 1. Whether a remarried individual can adopt singly under RA 8552.

Ruling

  • 1. Mandatory Joint Adoption: The word “shall” in RA 8552 Section 7 makes joint adoption compulsory for married couples. None of the exceptions (adopting a spouse’s child, illegitimate child, or legal separation) applied.
  • 2. Emancipation Irrelevant: Adoption confers broader legal ties (e.g., legitimacy, inheritance) beyond parental authority, which emancipation does not negate.
  • 3. Olario’s Non-compliance: As an alien, Olario needed to prove residency, diplomatic ties, and legal capacity under RA 8552—requirements unmet here.

Doctrines

  • 1. Mandatory Joint Adoption (RA 8552): Spouses must adopt together unless exceptions apply.
  • 2. Effects of Adoption: Adoption severs ties with biological parents, confers legitimacy, and establishes reciprocal rights (e.g., inheritance).
  • 3. Parental Authority Termination: Emancipation ends parental authority but not other adoption-related legal bonds.

Key Excerpts

  • 1. “Dura lex sed lex. The law is explicit.”
  • 2. “We cannot make our own legislation to suit petitioner.”
  • 3. “Adoption statutes... hold the interests and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration.”

Precedents Cited

  • 1. Republic v. Toledano (1994): Upheld mandatory joint adoption to ensure marital harmony.
  • 2. Republic v. Vergara (1997): Courts cannot ignore clear statutory language, even for noble purposes.
  • 3. Bobanovic v. Montes (1986): Adoption laws should prioritize child welfare but follow procedural rules.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

  • 1. RA 8552: Sections 7 (mandatory joint adoption), 16–18 (effects of adoption).
  • 2. Family Code: Articles 209–212 (parental authority), 174 and 195 (rights of legitimate children).
  • 3. RA 6809: Lowered the age of majority to 18.