Republic of the Philippines vs. Elepano

In an adoption proceeding, which is an action in rem involving the status of a person, the trial court may allow the taking of a deposition even before compliance with the publication requirement for the adoption hearing; Rule 24, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which conditions a deposition by leave of court upon prior acquisition of jurisdiction over a defendant or the property subject of the action, does not apply because there is no particular defendant and jurisdiction is based on the court’s power over the res.

Private respondent Corazon Santos Punsalan is the aunt of the minors Pinky Gonzales Punsalan and Ellyn Mae Punsalan Urbano, being the full-blood sister of their respective parents. She resides in Caloocan City but works in Geneva, Switzerland, and the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, was the only known oppositor to her adoption petition. Adoption proceedings require publication of the order of hearing, while Rule 24, Section 1 of the Rules of Court governs the taking of depositions pending action by leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over the defendant or the property subject of the action.

Corazon Santos Punsalan filed a verified petition for adoption before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch CXXVIII, praying that the minors Pinky Gonzales Punsalan, the daughter of her full-blood brother, and Ellyn Mae Punsalan Urbano, the daughter of her full-blood sister, be declared her daughters by adoption for all intents and purposes. She was a resident of Caloocan City but was then residing at 36 Avenue del Tilleuis, 1203 Geneva, Switzerland, where she worked for the United Nations as a Statistical Assistant with a monthly salary of 7,500 Swiss Francs. She had been taking care of the minors for several years, giving them moral, material, and spiritual support, and they had grown to love each other. The minors’ natural parents and the minors themselves had given their consent to the adoption, and the Department of Social Welfare and Development social worker had favorably recommended it.

On January 5, 1990, private respondent filed a Motion for Taking of Deposition, alleging that she had received an urgent call from the United Nations Office in Geneva, Switzerland requiring her to report for work on January 17, 1990, so that she would not be able to testify at the hearing of her petition yet to be scheduled by the respondent judge. On January 8, 1990, the respondent judge granted the motion and ordered that notice of the taking of the deposition on January 12, 1990 at 10:00 a.m. be furnished to the Office of the Solicitor General, the only known oppositor in the case. On the same date, the respondent judge issued an order setting the hearing for the petition for adoption on February 27, 1990 at 10:00 a.m. and directed publication of the order once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Metro Manila; copies of the order and the petition were sent to the OSG.

On January 12, 1990, private respondent’s deposition was taken. Despite notice, no representative from the OSG appeared to oppose the taking of the deposition. The OSG subsequently filed an Opposition to the Deposition, averring that Section 1 of Rule 24 of the Rules of Court allows deposition by leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or property subject of the action; because the jurisdictional requirement of publication had not been complied with, the lower court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, so the taking of the deposition could not yet be allowed at that stage. On February 14, 1990, the respondent judge denied the Opposition.

On February 27, 1990, after the notice of hearing for the petition for adoption had been duly published in The Manila Chronicle in accordance with law, counsel for private respondent presented evidence consisting of the testimonies of witnesses and documentary exhibits. The evidence showed that private respondent was a resident of Caloocan City but was presently residing in Geneva, Switzerland, where she was employed by the United Nations as a Statistical Assistant with a monthly salary of 7,500 Swiss Francs; that she sought to adopt the minors, her nieces of the full blood; that she had been taking care of them for the past several years by giving them moral, material, and spiritual support; that they had grown to love each other; that the minors’ parents by nature and the minors themselves had given their consent to the adoption; and that the DSWD social worker had favorably recommended the adoption. Despite notice, the OSG failed to appear at that hearing and at all subsequent hearings for the petition for adoption.

On July 12, 1990, the respondent judge granted the petition for adoption. The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration, which the respondent judge denied. The denial of the motion for reconsideration led the OSG to file the present petition for certiorari, arguing that depositions should not be allowed in adoption proceedings until the publication requirement had been fully complied with.

• Deposition Before Publication: Petitioner argued that depositions should not be allowed in adoption proceedings until the publication requirement has been fully complied with.
• Rule 24, Section 1: Petitioner cited Section 1 of Rule 24 of the Rules of Court, which allows deposition by leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property subject of the action, and argued that since the jurisdictional requirement of publication had not been complied with, the lower court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the defendant and the taking of the deposition could not yet be allowed at that stage.

• Applicability of Rule 24, Section 1: Whether Section 1 of Rule 24 of the Rules of Court, requiring leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over the defendant or the property subject of the action, applies to the taking of a deposition in an adoption proceeding before compliance with the publication requirement.
• Nature of Adoption Proceeding: Whether an adoption proceeding is an action in rem such that jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is not required before a deposition may be taken.
• Procedural Due Process: Whether the OSG was denied procedural due process when the trial court allowed the taking of the deposition despite its opposition and its failure to attend the hearings.
• Abuse of Discretion: Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the taking of private respondent’s deposition and in granting the petition for adoption.

• Applicability of Rule 24, Section 1: No. The rule is inapplicable to adoption proceedings because they are actions in rem and there is no particular defendant over whom jurisdiction must first be obtained.
• Nature of Adoption Proceeding: Adoption involves the status of a person and is an action in rem; jurisdiction is based on the court’s power over the res, so jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is not essential for the taking of a deposition.
• Procedural Due Process: No. The OSG was notified of the scheduled taking of the deposition and of all hearings but chose not to attend without explanation, so it cannot invoke lack of procedural due process.
• Abuse of Discretion: None. The respondent judge did not abuse its discretion in allowing the deposition, and the adoption redounds to the best interests of the minors.

• Applicability of Rule 24, Section 1: Section 1, Rule 24 provides that by leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the subject of the action, or without such leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of any person may be taken by deposition. The OSG invoked this provision to oppose the deposition because publication had not yet been complied with. The Court held the rule inapplicable. In an action in personam, personal service of summons or voluntary appearance is essential for jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. In an adoption case, which involves the status of a person, there is no particular defendant, since the action is in rem. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is therefore a non-essential condition for the taking of a deposition; jurisdiction is based on the court’s power over the res, to render judgment with respect to the status so as to bar all who might object. Publication of the scheduled hearing is necessary for the validity of a decree of adoption, but not for the purpose merely of taking a deposition. Taking a deposition does not affect substantial rights because the deposition may or may not be presented, or may be objected to when formally offered as evidence at the trial of the main case.

• Nature of Adoption Proceeding: Adoption involves the status of a person and is an action in rem. There is no particular defendant to speak of. The court’s jurisdiction is based on its power over the res, to render judgment with respect to such thing or status so as to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection against the right established. Thus, jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is not required for the taking of a deposition. The Court cited Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921, and Greg Alba vs. de la Cruz, 17 Phil. 49.

• Procedural Due Process: The OSG was notified of the scheduled taking of the deposition and of all the hearings of the petition for adoption, but it chose not to attend all the said hearings without explanation. It therefore had no reason to invoke lack of procedural due process. The private respondent also could not be present to testify at the trial due to urgent and compelling reasons beyond her control, which justified the taking of her deposition.

• Abuse of Discretion: No abuse of discretion was committed by the respondent judge in allowing the taking of private respondent’s deposition. The philosophy behind adoption statutes is to promote the welfare of the child, and every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote that objective, as held in Santos et al. vs. Aranzanso, et al., 16 SCRA 353. The record showed that private respondent’s adoption of the minors would redound to the best interests of the latter. The petition was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit.

• Adoption as an action in rem — An adoption proceeding involves the status of a person and is an action in rem; there is no particular defendant, and jurisdiction is based on the court’s power over the res rather than over the person of a defendant. The Court applied this to hold that Rule 24, Section 1’s requirement of prior jurisdiction over a defendant or property does not apply to the taking of a deposition in an adoption case.
• Publication requirement in adoption — Publication of the scheduled hearing for a petition for adoption is necessary for the validity of a decree of adoption, but not for the purpose merely of taking a deposition. The Court used this to reject the OSG’s opposition to the deposition taken before publication.
• Deposition pending action; substantial rights — The taking of a deposition does not affect substantial rights because the deposition may or may not be presented, or may be objected to when formally offered as evidence at the trial of the main case. This supported the allowance of the deposition before publication.
• Procedural due process; notice and opportunity to be heard — A party that has been notified of a scheduled deposition and of all hearings but chooses not to attend without explanation cannot later invoke lack of procedural due process. The Court applied this to the OSG.
• Best interests of the child in adoption — Adoption statutes are animated by the philosophy of promoting the welfare of the child, and every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote that objective. The Court relied on this in finding no abuse of discretion and in noting that the adoption redounded to the minors’ best interests.

• "While it is true that in an action in personam, personal service of summons within the forum or voluntary appearance in the case is essential for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, in an adoption case which involves the status of a person, there is no particular defendant to speak of since the action is one in rem." — This states the ratio decidendi on why Rule 24, Section 1 does not apply to adoption: adoption is an in rem proceeding involving status, so there is no defendant over whom jurisdiction must first be acquired.
• "Indeed, publication of the scheduled hearing for the petition for adoption is necessary for the validity of a decree of adoption but not for the purpose merely of taking a deposition. In taking a deposition, no substantial rights are affected since depositions may or may not be presented or may even be objected to when formally offered as evidence at the trial of the main case later on." — This distinguishes the publication requirement for the adoption decree from the requirements for taking a deposition and explains why the deposition may be allowed before publication.
• "The OSG, however, was notified of the scheduled taking of the deposition, as well as of all the hearings of the petition for adoption, but the OSG chose not to attend ALL the said hearings, without explanation. The OSG, therefore, has no reason to invoke lack of procedural due process." — This is the Court’s due process holding, rejecting the OSG’s claim because it had notice and opportunity to participate but deliberately did not attend.
• "Finally, it must not be forgotten that the philosophy behind adoption statutes is to promote the welfare of the child and every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote that objective." — This articulates the child-welfare principle that guided the Court in finding no abuse of discretion and in sustaining the adoption.

• Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921 — Cited to support the rule that in an action in rem, jurisdiction is based on the court’s power over the res, which the Court used to characterize adoption as an action in rem and to hold that jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is not required for the taking of a deposition.
• Greg Alba vs. de la Cruz, 17 Phil. 49 — Cited together with Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca for the same proposition on jurisdiction over the res in actions in rem.
• Santos et al. vs. Aranzanso, et al., 16 SCRA 353 — Cited for the doctrine that adoption statutes promote the welfare of the child and that every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote that objective.

• Section 1, Rule 24, Rules of Court — Provides that depositions pending action may be taken by leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the subject of the action, or without such leave after an answer has been served. The Court held it inapplicable to adoption proceedings because adoption is an action in rem, there is no defendant, and the publication requirement affects the validity of the adoption decree but not the taking of a deposition.

Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concurred. Melencio-Herrera, J., was on leave.