Ian Ralph M. Alajid Judge Evelyn J.

Gamotin-Nery
Odette Leh V. Caragos Persons and Family Relations
Patrick Neil F. Sumondong TF 05:30 - 07:30

LAHOM VS. SIBULO

Facts:
Dr. Diosdado Lahom and Isabelita Lahom took into their care, Isabelita's nephew,
Jose Melvin Sibulo, at the tender age of two. They filed a petition for adoption in 1971
and was granted on May 05, 1972. In keeping with the court order, the Civil Registrar of
Naga City changed the name "Jose Melvin Sibulo" to "Jose Melvin Lahom." In
December 1999, Mrs. Lahom commenced a petition to rescind the decree of adoption
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, of Naga City. The petition stated,
among others, the following:
a.) 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.
b.) Respondent continued using his surname Sibulo 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.
c.) Respondent remained indifferent and would only come to Naga to see her
once a year.
d.) 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, respondent all the more
remained callous and utterly indifferent towards petitioner which is not expected of a
son.
e.) 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.
f.) In view of respondent's insensible attitude resulting in a strained and
uncomfortable relationship between him and petitioner and also 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.

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
Ian Ralph M. Alajid Judge Evelyn J. Gamotin-Nery
Odette Leh V. Caragos Persons and Family Relations
Patrick Neil F. Sumondong TF 05:30 - 07:30

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.
"Adoption, being in the best interest of the child, shall not be subject to rescission by the
adopter(s). However, the adopter(s) may disinherit the adoptee for causes provided in
Article 919 of the Civil Code."

In the RTC, the respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition contending
principally (a) that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case and (b) that the
petitioner had no cause of action in view of the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 8552.
Petitioner asseverated, by way of opposition, that the proscription in R.A. No. 8552
should not retroactively apply, i.e., to cases where the ground for rescission of the
adoption vested under the regime of then Article 3482 of the Civil Code and Article 1923
of the Family Code. In an order, dated 28 April 2000, the petition was ordered dismissed
citing Section 19, Article VI of R.A. No. 8552 which deleted the right of an adopter to
rescind an adoption earlier granted under the Family Code. Conformably, on the face of
the petition, indeed there is lack of cause of action.

Issues:
1. May the subject adoption, decreed on 05 May 1972, still be revoked or rescinded by
an adopter after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8552?
2. In the affirmative, has the adopter's action prescribed?

Held:
1. No, 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.
2. Yes, matters relating to adoption, including the withdrawal of the right of an adopter to
nullify the adoption decree, are subject to regulation by the State. 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.