Park v. Liwanag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, Spouses Joon Hyung Park and Kyung Ah Lee, American citizens residing in the Philippines since 2007 and 2009 respectively, filed a Petition for Adoption with Change of Name of a minor, Innah Alegado, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Innah was rescued from trafficking at 22 days old and her custody was later granted to the petitioners by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Petitioners had previously adopted another child, Hannah, through domestic adoption. Procedural History: The RTC, in an Order dated September 11, 2017, found the Petition to be a proper case for inter-country adoption and directed the transmittal of the Petition to the Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB) for appropriate action, effectively disposing of the case at the RTC level. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration, citing a supervening event regarding the treatment of foreigners residing in the Philippines who file adoption petitions. This second motion was also denied as a prohibited pleading. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC's Orders. The CA dismissed the Petition for certiorari for being filed out of time, counting the 60-day period from the denial of the first motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the CA's resolutions and praying for the remand of the case to the RTC for continuation of adoption proceedings. They argued that the CA erred in dismissing their petition for certiorari on procedural grounds, that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in referring the case to ICAB, and that substantial compliance with certain requirements is sufficient, emphasizing the best interest of the child.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being filed out of time. Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in referring the Petition for Adoption to the Inter-Country Adoption Board. Whether substantial compliance with the Home Study and certification requirements is sufficient for adoption proceedings. Whether adoption laws should be construed liberally to promote the best interest of the child.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 136, with directions to continue with dispatch the adoption proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the Petition for Certiorari: The Court found that a relaxation of procedural rules was necessary to promote the best interest of the child. Petitioners did not sleep on their rights but filed a Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration to secure necessary certifications, which was not meant to cause delay but to assist the court. Therefore, the 60-day period for filing the Petition for Certiorari should be counted from the receipt of the order denying their second motion for reconsideration, making their filing with the CA timely. The Court reiterated that strict application of technicalities should be avoided if it frustrates substantial justice, citing jurisprudence that allows suspension of rules in extraordinary situations to prevent grave injustice. On the RTC's referral to ICAB: The Court held that the petitioners' Petition for Adoption was appropriately filed under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, not the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995. Petitioners, as American citizens residing and gainfully employed in the Philippines for more than three continuous years prior to filing the petition, met the requirements for domestic adoption under Section 4(2) of the Domestic Adoption Act. The Inter-Country Adoption Act applies to aliens permanently residing abroad. Referring the case to ICAB would only cause undue delay, prejudicial to the interest of the adoptee and the petitioners, especially considering the agreement between the Supreme Court and ICAB that such cases might be referred back to the trial court for domestic adoption proceedings. On substantial compliance and liberal construction: The Court acknowledged that adoption statutes should be liberally construed to carry out their beneficent purposes, with the welfare of the child being of paramount consideration. Petitioners had already undertaken significant steps, including securing authenticated copies of relevant laws, deposing an expert witness, and submitting supporting documents. The child had been living with petitioners for six years and recognized them as parents. Thus, it was in the best interest of the child to continue the proceedings in the trial court to determine petitioners' qualification to adopt, rather than starting anew with ICAB. On the best interest of the child: The Court emphasized that the welfare of the child is the primary and paramount consideration in adoption proceedings. Liberal construction of adoption statutes is mandated to promote the noble and compassionate objectives of the law. In this case, the child had been with the petitioners for a significant period, and the proceedings had already advanced considerably. To refer the case to ICAB would cause further delay, which is contrary to the child's best interest. The Court invoked Article 10 of the Civil Code, stating that in case of doubt, the presumption is that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.
Main Doctrine
The Court may relax procedural rules to prioritize the best interest of the child in adoption proceedings, especially when the strict application of technicalities would lead to injustice or unnecessary delay. Foreigners residing in the Philippines for at least three continuous years may file for adoption under the Domestic Adoption Act, not necessarily the Inter-Country Adoption Act.