Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Landingin vs. Republic, GR No. 164948, June 27, 2006, digestedPosted by Pius Morados on March 17, 2012(Special Proceedings – Adoption: Consent and Abandonment)Facts: Diwata Ramos Landingin, a US citizen of Filipino parentage filed a petition for the adoption of 3 minors, natural children of Manuel Ramos, the former’s brother, and Amelia Ramos. She alleged in her petition that when her brother died, the children were left to their paternal grandmother for their biological mother went to Italy, re-married there and now has 2 children by her second marriage and no longer communicates from the time she left up to the institution of the adoption. After the paternal grandmother passed away, the minors were being supported by the petitioner and her children abroad and gave their written consent for their adoption.A Social Worker of the DSWD submitted a Report recommending for the adoption and narrated that Amelia, the biological mother was consulted with the adoption plan and after weighing the benefits of adoption to her children, she voluntarily consented.However, petitioner failed to present the said social worker as witness and offer in evidence the voluntary consent of Amelia Ramos to the adoption. Petitioner also failed to present any documentary evidence to prove that Amelia assent to the adoption.Issue: WON a petition for adoption be granted without the written consent of the adoptee’s biological mother.Held: No. Section 9, par (b) of RA 8552, provides that the consent of the biological parent(s) of the child, if known is necessary to the adoption. The written consent of the legal guardian will suffice if the written consent of the biological parents cannot be obtained.The general requirement of consent and notice to the natural parents is intended to protect the natural parental relationship from unwarranted interference by interlopers, and to insure the opportunity to safeguard the best interests of the child in the manner of the proposed adoption.The written consent of the biological parents is indispensable for the validity of the decree of adoption. Indeed, the natural right of a parent to his child requires that his consent must be obtained before his parental rights and duties may be terminated and re-establish in adoptive parents. In this case, petitioner failed to submit the written consent of Amelia Ramos to the adoption.Moreover, abandonment means neglect and refusal to perform the filial and legal obligations of love and support. Merely permitting the child to remain for a time undisturbed in the care of others is not such abandonment. To dispense with the requirements of consent, the abandonment must be shown to have existed at the time of adoption.
Citation preview
Cynthia S. Bolos vs Danilo T. Bolos634 SCRA 429, [October 20, 2010]
Facts :Petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage invoking Article 36 of the Family Code on July 10, 2003. The RTC granted her petition on August 2, 2006. Respondent thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration after respondent received the decision of the lower court. The decision as declared final after a motion to reconsider denial of appeal was denied.
Respondent filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals and hereby granted. The appellate court ruled that AM no 02-11-10-SC did not apply to the case at bar as their marriage was solemnized Feb 14 1980 before the family code took effect. The said court procedure required a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to appeal cases on declaration of absolute nullity on void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages. Petitioner filed her manifestation and a motion for partial reconsideration but was denied by the appellate court as the 15-day reglementary period to file is not extendable.
Petitioner filed this said petition to the Supreme Court contending that the appellate court erred in ruling that their case is not covered by the Family Code; that AM no 02-11-10-SC covers/pertains to the word “petitions” instead of “marriages”; if the Family code covers the case then a motion of reconsideration is a precondition for an appeal; and, since the respondent refused to comply with the precondition of filing a motion for reconsideration, a relaxation on the rules of appeal is not proper.
Issue: Whether or not AM no 02-11-10 SC “Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of void marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages” is applicable to the case.
Held: No. the court ruled that AM 02-11-10-SC is strict in its scope wherein section 1 of the rule reads:
“Section 1. Scope – This rule shall govern petitions for declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines.” Applying the rule verba legis, the said section leaves no room for interpretation and is very clear that it would only cover marriages under the Family Code. Also it would only be applied to “marriages” not to “petitions.”
