Castro Vs Gregorio

3/30/2016 G.R.No.188801,October15,2014ROSARIOMATACASTROANDJOANNEBENEDICTACHARISSIMAM.CASTRO,A.K.A.
"MARIASOCORRO
ChanRobles VirtualLawLibrary
Like
|chanrobles.com
Search
Tweet
PhilippineSupremeCourtJurisprudence>Year2014>October2014Decisions>G.R. No. 188801, October 15,

2014 ROSARIO MATA CASTRO AND JOANNE BENEDICTA CHARISSIMA M. CASTRO, A.K.A. "MARIA SOCORRO
M.CASTRO"AND"JAYROSEM.CASTRO,"Petitioners,v.JOSEMARIAJEDLEMUELGREGORIOANDANAMARIA
REGINAGREGORIO,Respondents.:
Search
ChanRoblesOnLineBarReview
G.R.No.188801,October15,2014ROSARIOMATACASTROANDJOANNEBENEDICTACHARISSIMA
M.CASTRO,A.K.A."MARIASOCORROM.CASTRO"AND"JAYROSEM.CASTRO,"Petitioners,v.JOSE
MARIAJEDLEMUELGREGORIOANDANAMARIAREGINAGREGORIO,Respondents.
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.188801,October15,2014
ROSARIOMATACASTROANDJOANNEBENEDICTACHARISSIMAM.CASTRO,A.K.A."MARIA
SOCORROM.CASTRO"AND"JAYROSEM.CASTRO,"Petitioners,v.JOSEMARIAJEDLEMUEL
GREGORIOANDANAMARIAREGINAGREGORIO,Respondents.
DECISION
LEONEN,J.:
Thepolicyofthelawisclear.Inordertomaintainharmony,theremustbeashowingofnoticeand
consent.Thiscannotbedefeatedbymereproceduraldevices.Inallinstanceswhereitappearsthat
a spouse attempts to adopt a child out of wedlock, the other spouse and other legitimate children
must be personally notified through personal service of summons. It is not enough that they be
deemednotifiedthroughconstructiveservice.
DebtKollectCompany,Inc.
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the decision2 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R.
SPNo.101021,whichdeniedthepetitionforannulmentofjudgmentfiledbypetitioners.Thepetition
before the appellate court sought to annul the judgment of the trial court that granted respondents'
decreeofadoption.3
c h a n r o b le s la w
The case originally stemmed from the adoption of Jose Maria Jed Lemuel Gregorio (Jd) and Ana
Maria Regina Gregorio (Regina) by Atty. Jose G. Castro (Jose). Jose is the estranged husband of
Rosario Mata Castro (Rosario) and the father of Joanne Benedicta Charissima M. Castro (Joanne),
alsoknownbyherbaptismalname,"MariaSocorroM.Castro"andhernickname,"Jayrose."
RosarioallegedthatsheandJoseweremarriedonAugust5,1962inLaoagCity.Theirmarriagehad
allegedly been troubled. They had a child, Rose Marie, who was born in 1963, but succumbed to
congenital heart disease and only lived for nine days. Rosario allegedly left Jose after a couple of
monthsbecauseoftheincompatibilitiesbetweenthem.4
RosarioandJose,however,brieflyreconciledin1969.RosariogavebirthtoJoanneayearlater.She
and Jose allegedly lived as husband and wife for about a year even if she lived in Manila and Jose
stayed in Laoag City. Jose would visit her in Manila during weekends. Afterwards, they separated
permanentlybecauseRosarioallegedthatJosehadhomosexualtendencies.5Sheinsisted,however,
thatthey"remainedfriendsforfifteen(15)yearsdespitetheirseparation(.)"6
OnAugust1,2000,Josefiledapetition7foradoptionbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofBatac,Ilocos
ChanRoblesIntellectualProperty
Division
Norte. In the petition, he alleged that Jed and Regina were his illegitimate children with Lilibeth
FernandezGregorio(Lilibeth),8whomRosarioallegedwashiserstwhilehousekeeper.9Atthetimeof
thefilingofthepetition,Josewas70yearsold.10
AccordingtotheHomeStudyReport11conductedbytheSocialWelfareOfficerofthetrialcourt,Jose
belongs to a prominent and respected family, being one of the three children of former Governor
MauricioCastro.
He was also a wellknown lawyer in Manila and Ilocos Norte.12 The report mentioned that he was
oncemarriedtoRosario,butthemarriagedidnotproduceanychildren.13Italsostatedthathemet
and fell in love with Lilibeth in 1985, and Lilibeth was able to bear him two children, Jed on August
1987, and Regina on March 1989.14 Under "Motivation for Adoption," the social welfare officer
noted:
c h a n Ro b le s v ir t u a lL a wlib r a r y
Since,hehasnochildwithhismarriaged[sic]toRosarioMata,hewasnotabletofulfill
his dreams to parent a child. However, with the presence of his 2 illegitimate children
will fulfill his dreams [sic] and it is his intention to legalize their relationship and
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=936
1/8
3/30/2016 G.R.No.188801,October15,2014ROSARIOMATACASTROANDJOANNEBENEDICTACHARISSIMAM.CASTRO,A.K.A."MARIASOCORRO
surname....15
Atthetimeofthereport,JosewassaidtobelivingwithJedandReginatemporarilyinBatac,Ilocos
Norte.16ThechildrenhaveallegedlybeeninhiscustodysinceLilibeth'sdeathinJuly1995.17
OnOctober16,2000,thetrialcourtapprovedtheadoption,18havingruledthat"[n]ooppositionhad
beenreceivedbythisCourtfromanypersonincludingthegovernmentwhichwasrepresentedbythe
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral."19Acertificateoffinality 20wasissuedonFebruary9,2006.
Meanwhile,onJuly3,2006,Rosario,throughherlawyer,Atty.ReneV.Saguisag,filedacomplaintfor
disbarment against Jose with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.21 In her complaint, she alleged
that Jose had been remiss in providing support for their daughter, Joanne, for the past 36 years.22
SheallegedthatshesinglehandedlyraisedandprovidedfinancialsupporttoJoannewhileJosehad
been showering gifts to his driver and alleged lover, Larry R. Rentegrado (Larry), and even went to
theextentofadoptingLarry'stwochildren,JedandRegina,withoutherandJoanne'sknowledgeand
consent.23 She also alleged that Jose made blatant lies to the trial court by alleging that Jed and
Regina were his illegitimate children with Larry's wife, Lilibeth, to cover up for his homosexual
relationshipwithLarry.24
In his answer before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Jose denies being remiss in his fatherly
duties to Joanne during her minority. He alleged that he always offered help, but it was often
declined.25HealsoallegedthatheadoptedJedandReginabecausetheyarehisillegitimatechildren.
HedeniedhavingcommittedanyofthefalsificationalludedtobyRosario.Healsostatedthathehad
suffered a stroke in 1998 that left him paralyzed. He alleged that his income had been diminished
because several properties had to be sold to pay for medical treatments.26 He then implored the
IntegratedBarofthePhilippinestoweighonthecasewith"justiceandequity."27
OnOctober8,2006,JosediedinLaoagCity,IlocosNorte.28
OnOctober18,2007,RosarioandJoannefiledapetitionforannulmentofjudgmentunderRule47of
theRulesofCivilProcedurewiththeCourtofAppeals,seekingtoannultheOctober16,2000decision
ofthetrialcourtapprovingJedandRegina'sadoption.29
In their petition, Rosario and Joanne allege that they learned of the adoption sometime in 2005.30
They allege that Rosario's affidavit of consent, marked by the trial court as "Exh. K,"31 was
fraudulent.32 They also allege that Jed and Regina's birth certificates showed different sets of
information,suchastheageoftheirmother,Lilibeth,atthetimeshegavebirth.Theyarguethatone
set of birth certificates states the father to be Jose and in another set of National Statistic Office
certificatesshowsthefathertobeLarry,Jose'sdriverandallegedlover.33Itwasfurtherallegedthat
JedandReginaarenotactuallyJose'sillegitimatechildrenbutthelegitimatechildrenofLilibethand
Larrywhoweremarriedatthetimeoftheirbirth.34
OnMay26,2009,theCourtofAppealsdeniedthepetition.
While admittedly, no notice was given by the trial court to Rosario and Joanne of the adoption, the
appellate court ruled that there is "no explicit provision in the rules that the spouse and legitimate
childoftheadopter...shouldbepersonallynotifiedofthehearing."35
The appellate court "abhor[red] the mind baffling scheme employed by [Jose] in obtaining an
adoptiondecreeinfavorof[hisillegitimatechildren]totheprejudiceoftheinterestsofhislegitimate
heirs"36 but stated that its hands were bound by the trial court decision that had already attained
"finalityandimmutability."37
October2014Jurisprudence
A.M. No. RTJ082140 (Formerly A.M. No. 00286
RTC), October 07, 2014 OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE
OWEN B. AMOR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAET,
CAMARINESNORTE,Respondent.
A.C. No. 7919, October 08, 2014 DOMADO
DISOMIMBA SULTAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. CASAN
MACABANDING,Respondent.
A.M.No.P143246[FormerlyA.M.OCAI.P.I.No.11
3580P], October 15, 2014 ATTY. RICO PAOLO R.
QUICHO, REPRESENTING BANK OF COMMERCE,
Complainant, v. BIENVENIDO S. REYES, JR. , SHERIFF
IV, BRANCH 98, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON
CITY,Respondent.
G.R.No.205821,October01,2014PEOPLEOFTHE
PHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,v.GARRYDELACRUZY
DEGUZMAN,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 188753, October 01, 2014 AMPHIL FOOD
CONCEPTS, INC., Petitioner, v. PAOLO JESUS T.
PADILLA,Respondent.
Theappellatecourtalsoruledthattheallegedfraudulentinformationcontainedinthedifferentsetsof
birth certificates required the determination of the identities of the persons stated therein and was,
therefore, beyond the scope of the action for annulment of judgment. The alleged fraud was also
perpetrated during the trial and could not be classified as extrinsic fraud, which is required in an
actionforannulmentofjudgment.38
WhenRosarioandJoanne'smotionforreconsiderationwasdeniedonJuly10,2009,39theyfiledthis
petition.
The issue before this court is whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for
annulmentforfailureofpetitionersto(1)showthatthetrialcourtlackedjurisdictionand(2)showthe
existenceofextrinsicfraud.
In their petition, petitioners argue that the appellate court erred in its application of the law on
extrinsicfraudasgroundtoannulajudgment.40Theyarguethatbecauseofthefabricatedconsent
obtained by Jose and the alleged false information shown in the birth certificates presented as
evidencebeforethetrialcourt,41theywerenotgiventheopportunitytoopposethepetitionsincethe
entireproceedingswereconcealedfromthem.42
Petitioners also argue that the appellate court misunderstood and misapplied the law on jurisdiction
despite the denial of due process, notice, and noninclusion of indispensable parties.43 They argue
that the adoption of illegitimate children requires the consent, not only of the spouse, but also the
legitimate children 10 years or over of the adopter, and such consent was never secured from
Joanne.44
G.R. No. 198528, October 13, 2014 MAGSAYSAY

MITSUI OSK MARINE, INC. AND/OR MOL TANKSHIP
MANAGEMENT(ASIA)PTELTD.,Petitioners,v.JUANITO
G.BENGSON,*Respondent.
Respondents,however,argueintheircommentthatpetitionerscouldnothavebeendeprivedoftheir
dayincourtsincetheirinterestwas"amplyprotectedbytheparticipationandrepresentationofthe
SolicitorGeneralthroughthedeputizedpublicprosecutor."45
A.M.No.P143217(FormerlyOCAIPINO.144252
RTJ), October 08, 2014 RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER,
Complainant, v. JUDGE CORAZON D. SOLUREN,
PRESIDING JUDGE, AND RABINDRANATH A. TUZON,
LEGAL RESEARCHER II, BOTH OF BRANCH 91,
REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURT,
BALER,
AURORA,
Respondents.
Respondentsalsoarguethattherewasconstructivenoticethroughpublicationforthreeconsecutive
weeksinanewspaperofgeneralcirculation,whichconstitutesnotonlynoticetothembutalsonotice
totheworldoftheadoptionproceedings.46Theyarguethatsincetheallegedfraudwasperpetrated
during the trial, it cannot be said to be extrinsic fraud but intrinsic fraud, which is not a ground for
annulment of judgment.47 They also argue that petitioners were not indispensable parties because
adoptionisanactioninremand,assuch,theonlyindispensablepartyisthestate.48
PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. CHARLIE FIELDAD, RYAN
CORNISTA,ANDEDGARPIMENTEL,Appellants.
Thepetitionisgranted.
G.R. No. 189358, October 08, 2014 CENTENNIAL

GUARANTEE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORPORATION, RODRIGO T.
JANEO, JR., GERARDO GELLE, NISSAN CAGAYAN DE
ORODISTRIBUTORS,INC.,JEFFERSONU.ROLIDA,AND
AnnulmentofjudgmentunderRule47
oftheRulesofCivilProcedure
UnderRule47,Section1oftheRulesofCivilProcedure,apartymayfileanactionwiththeCourtof
Appeals to annul judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts.
Thisremedywillonlybeavailableif"theordinaryremediesofnewtrial,appeal,petitionforreliefor
2/8
PETERYAP,Respondents.
otherappropriateremediesarenolongeravailablethroughnofaultofthepetitioner."49
G.R. No. 198636, October 08, 2014 ESPERANZA C.

CARINAN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GAVINO CUETO AND
CARMELITACUETO,Respondents.
InDareAdventureFarmCorporationv.CourtofAppeals:50
Apetitionforannulmentofjudgmentisaremedyinequitysoexceptionalinnaturethat
it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment,
final order or final resolution sought, to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking
jurisdictionorthroughextrinsicfraud.Yet,theremedy,beingexceptionalincharacter,
is not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final
judgments, orders or resolutions. The Court has thus instituted safeguards by limiting
the grounds for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by
prescribinginSection1ofRule47oftheRulesofCourtthatthepetitionershouldshow
that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. A petition for
annulmentthatignoresordisregardsanyofthesafeguardscannotprosper.
G.R. No. 183272, October 15, 2014 SUN LIFE OF

CANADA (PHILIPPINES), INC., Petitioner, v. SANDRA
TAN KIT AND THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED
NORBERTOTANKIT,Respondents.
G.R. No. 198878, October 15, 2014 RESIDENTS OF
LOWER ATAB & TEACHERS VILLAGE, STO. TOMAS
PROPER BARANGAY, BAGUIO CITY, REPRESENTED BY
BEATRICE T. PULAS, CRISTINA A. LAPPAO. MICHAEL
MADIGUID, FLORENCIO MABUDYANG AND FERNANDO
DOSALIN, Petitioners, v. STA. MONICA INDUSTRIAL &
DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,Respondent.
Theattitudeofjudicialreluctancetowardstheannulmentofajudgment,finalorderor
finalresolutionisunderstandable,fortheremedydisregardsthetimehonoreddoctrine
of immutability and unalterability of final judgments, a solid corner stone in the
dispensation of justice by the courts. The doctrine of immutability and unalterability
serves a twofold purpose, namely: (a) to avoid delay in the administration of justice
and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business and (b) to
putanendtojudicialcontroversies,attheriskofoccasionalerrors,whichisprecisely
why the courts exist. As to the first, a judgment that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable and is no longer to be modified in any respect even if the
modificationismeanttocorrectanerroneousconclusionoffactoroflaw,andwhether
themodificationismadebythecourtthatrenderedthedecisionorbythehighestcourt
of the land. As to the latter, controversies cannot drag on indefinitely because
fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice demand that the rights
and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of
time.51(Emphasissupplied)
G.R. No. 185745, October 15, 2014 SPOUSES

DOMINADOR
MARCOS
AND
GLORIA
MARCOS,
Petitioners,v.HEIRSOFISIDROBANGIANDGENOVEVA
DICCION, REPRESENTED BY NOLITO SABIANO,
Respondents.
G.R.No.193650,October08,2014GEORGEPHILIP
P. PALILEO AND JOSE DE LA CRUZ, Petitioners, v.
PLANTERSDEVELOPMENTBANK,Respondent.
G.R. No. 190161, October 13, 2014 ANITA N.
CANUEL,FORHERSELFANDONBEHALFOFHERMINOR
CHILDREN, NAMELY: CHARMAINE, CHARLENE, AND
CHARL SMITH, ALL SURNAMED CANUEL, Petitioners, v.
MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, EDUARDO U.
MANESE, AND KOTANI SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014 MARIETTA N.
BARRIDO, Petitioner, v. LEONARDO V. NONATO,
Respondent.
Becauseoftheexceptionalnatureoftheremedy,thereareonlytwogroundsbywhichannulmentof
judgmentmaybeavailedof:extrinsicfraud,whichmustbebroughtfouryearsfromdiscovery,and
lackofjurisdiction,whichmustbebroughtbeforeitisbarredbyestoppelorlaches.52
G.R. No. 197228, October 08, 2014 DUTY FREE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY HON. ANSELMO G.
ADRIANO, ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REVENUE
REGIONNO.8,MAKATICITY,Respondent.
G.R. No. 197380, October 08, 2014 ELIZA ZUIGA
SANTOS,* REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEYIN FACT,
NYMPHA Z. SALES, Petitioners, v. MARIA DIVINA
GRACIASANTOSGRAN**ANDREGISTEROFDEEDSOF
MARIKINACITY,Respondents.
G.R. No. 191225, October 13, 2014 ZARSONA
MEDICAL CLINIC, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE HEALTH
INSURANCECORPORATION,Respondent.
G.R. No. 203583, October 13, 2014 LEONORA B.
RIMANDO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES WINSTON AND
ELENITA ALDABA AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 187240, October 15, 2014 CARLOS A.
LORIA, Petitioner, v. LUDOLFO P. MUOZ, JR.,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 204800, October 14, 2014 NATIONAL
TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ATTY. JOSEPHINE A. TILAN,
REGIONAL CLUSTER DIRECTOR AND MR. ROBERTO G.
PADILLA,STATEAUDITORIV,Respondents.
Lackofjurisdictionunderthisrulemeanslackofjurisdictionoverthenatureoftheactionorsubject
matter, or lack of jurisdiction over the parties.53 Extrinsic fraud, on the other hand, is "[that which]
prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or [that which]
operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is
procured."54
The grant of adoption over respondents should be annulled as the trial court did not validly acquire
jurisdictionovertheproceedings,andthefavorabledecisionwasobtainedthroughextrinsicfraud.
Jurisdictionoveradoptionproceedings
visavisthelawonadoption
Petitioners argue that they should have been given notice by the trial court of the adoption, as
adoptionlawsrequiretheirconsentasarequisiteintheproceedings.
Petitionersarecorrect.
Itissettledthat"thejurisdictionofthecourtisdeterminedbythestatuteinforceatthetimeofthe
commencement of the action."55 As Jose filed the petition for adoption on August 1, 2000, it is
Republic Act No. 855256 which applies over the proceedings. The law on adoption requires that the
adoptionbythefatherofachildbornoutofwedlockobtainnotonlytheconsentofhiswifebutalso
theconsentofhislegitimatechildren.
UnderArticleIII,Section7ofRepublicActNo.8552,thehusbandmustfirstobtaintheconsentofhis
wifeifheseekstoadopthisownchildrenbornoutofwedlock:
ARTICLEIII
ELIGIBILITY
G.R. No. 191838, October 20, 2014 YKR

CORPORATION, MA. TERESA J. YULOGOMEZ, JOSE
ENRIQUE J. YULO, MA. ANTONIA J. YULOLOYZAGA,
JOSEMANUELJ.YULO,MA.CARMENJ.YULOANDJOSE
MARIA J. YULO, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE AGRI
BUSINESS CENTER CORPORATION, Respondent. G.R.
No. 191863 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AGRIBUSINESS CENTER
CORPORATION,Respondent.
SEC.7.WhoMayAdopt.Thefollowingmayadopt:
c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y
Husbandandwifeshalljointlyadopt,exceptinthefollowingcases:
(i)ifonespouseseekstoadoptthelegitimateson/daughteroftheotheror
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided,
however,Thattheotherspousehassignified,his/herconsenttheretoor
G.R. No. 192518, October 15, 2014 PHILIPPINE

LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY AND/OR
ERNANI
TUMIMBANG,
Petitioners,
v.
HENRY
ESTRANERO,Respondent.
(iii)ifthespousesarelegallyseparatedfromeachother...(Emphasissupplied)
G.R. No. 194884, October 22, 2014 IMASEN

PHILIPPINE
MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. RAMONCHITO T. ALCON AND JOANN S.
PAPA,Respondents.
The provision is mandatory. As a general rule, the husband and wife must file a joint petition for
adoption.TherationaleforthisisstatedinInRe:PetitionforAdoptionofMichelleP.Lim:57
G.R.No.186223,October01,2014COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE
ASSOCIATEDSMELTINGANDREFININGCORPORATION,
Respondent.
Theuseoftheword"shall"intheabovequotedprovisionmeansthatjointadoptionby
thehusbandandthewifeismandatory.Thisisinconsonancewiththeconceptofjoint
parentalauthorityoverthechildwhichistheidealsituation.Asthechildtobeadopted
iselevatedtothelevelofalegitimatechild,itisbutnaturaltorequirethespousesto
adoptjointly.Therulealsoinsuresharmonybetweenthespouses.58
G.R.No.191101,October01,2014SPOUSESMARIO
OCAMPO AND CARMELITA F. OCAMPO, Petitioners, v.
HEIRSOFBERNARDINOU.DIONISIO,REPRESENTEDBY
ARTEMIOSJ.DIONISIO,Respondents.
A.M. No. P143271 [formerly OCA IPI No. 113640
P], October 22, 2014 ATTY. ALAN A. TAN,
Complainant,v.ELMERS.AZCUETA,PROCESSSERVER,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, IMUS, CAVITE,
Respondent.
G.R.No.188066,October22,2014OFFICEOFTHE
OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. CYNTHIA E. CABEROY,
Respondent.
Thelawprovidesforseveralexceptionstothegeneralrule,asinasituationwhereaspouseseeksto
adopt his or her own children born out of wedlock. In this instance, joint adoption is not necessary.
However,thespouseseekingtoadoptmustfirstobtaintheconsentofhisorherspouse.
In the absence of any decree of legal separation or annulment, Jose and Rosario remained legally
married despite their de facto separation. For Jose to be eligible to adopt Jed and Regina, Rosario
mustfirstsignifyherconsenttotheadoption.Jose,however,didnotvalidlyobtainRosario'sconsent.
His submission of a fraudulent affidavit of consent in her name cannot be considered compliance of
the requisites of the law. Had Rosario been given notice by the trial court of the proceedings, she
would have had a reasonable opportunity to contest the validity of the affidavit. Since her consent
wasnotobtained,Josewasineligibletoadopt.
3/8
G.R. No. 192150, October 01, 2014 FEDERICO
SABAY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
Thelawalsorequiresthewrittenconsentoftheadopter'schildreniftheyare10yearsoldorolder.
InArticleIII,Section9ofRepublicActNo.8552:
G.R. No. 195832, October 01, 2014 FORMERLY INC

SHIPMANAGEMENT,
INCORPORATED
(NOW
INC
NAVIGATION CO. PHILIPPINES, INC.), REYNALDO M.
RAMIREZ AND/OR INTERORIENT NAVIGATION CO.,
LTD./LIMASSOL, CYPRUS, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN I.
ROSALES,Respondent.
SEC.9.WhoseConsentisNecessarytotheAdoption.Afterbeingproperlycounseled
and informed of his/her right to give or withhold his/her approval of the adoption, the
writtenconsentofthefollowingtotheadoptionisherebyrequired:
(c) The legitimate and adopted sons/daughters, ten (10) years of age or over, of the
adopter(s)andadoptee,ifany(Emphasissupplied)
G.R.No.191034,October01,2014AGILEMARITIME
RESOURCES INC., ATTY. IMELDA LIM BARCELONA AND
PRONAV SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioners, v.
APOLINARION.SIADOR,Respondent.
The consent of the adopter's other children is necessary as it ensures harmony among the
prospectivesiblings.Italsosufficientlyputstheotherchildrenonnoticethattheywillhavetoshare
theirparent'sloveandcare,aswellastheirfuturelegitimes,withanotherperson.
A.M.NO.P092691(FORMERLYA.M.OCAIPINO.09
3040P),October13,2014IRENEOGARCIA,RECORDS
OFFICER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF
THE CLERK OF COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, Complainant,
v. CLERK OF COURT IV ATTY. MONALISA A.
BUENCAMINO,RECORDSOFFICERIIJOVITAP.FLORES
ANDPROCESSSERVERSALVADORF.TORIAGA,ALLOF
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK
OFCOURT,CALOOCANCITY,Respondents.A.M.No.P
092687 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 093093P)
EXECUTIVE JUDGE MARIAM G. BIEN, METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 53, CALOOCAN CITY,
Complainant, v. IRENEO GARCIA, RECORDS OFFICER I
AND SALVADOR F. TORIAGA, PROCESS SERVER, BOTH
OFTHEMETROPOLITANTRIALCOURT,OFFICEOFTHE
CLERKOFCOURT,CALOOCANCITY,Respondents.A.M.
NO.P143247(FORMERLYA.M.OCAIPINO.093238
P) CLERK OF COURT IV ATTY. MONALISA A.
BUENCAMINO, RECORDS OFFICER II JOVITA P.
FLORES,ANDPROCESSSERVERSALVADORF.TORIAGA
OFTHEMETROPOLITANTRIALCOURT,OFFICEOFTHE
CLERK OF COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, Complainants, v.
IRENEO GARCIA AND UTILITY WORKER I HONEYLEE
VARGASGATBUNTONGUEVARRA,Respondents.
ItisundisputedthatJoannewasJoseandRosario'slegitimatechildandthatshewasover10years
old at the time of the adoption proceedings. Her written consent, therefore, was necessary for the
adoptiontobevalid.
Tocircumventthisrequirement,however,JosemanifestedtothetrialcourtthatheandRosariowere
childless, thereby preventing Joanne from being notified of the proceedings. As her written consent
wasneverobtained,theadoptionwasnotvalid.
For the adoption to be valid, petitioners' consent was required by Republic Act No. 8552. Personal
service of summons should have been effected on the spouse and all legitimate children to ensure
that their substantive rights are protected. It is not enough to rely on constructive notice as in this
case. Surreptitious use of procedural technicalities cannot be privileged over substantive statutory
rights.
Since the trial court failed to personally serve notice on Rosario and Joanne of the proceedings, it
nevervalidlyacquiredjurisdiction.
Therewasextrinsicfraud
Theappellatecourt,indenyingthepetition,ruledthatwhilefraudmayhavebeencommittedinthis
case,itwasonlyintrinsicfraud,ratherthanextrinsicfraud.Thisiserroneous.
InPeoplev.CourtofAppealsandSocorroFlorece:59
G.R. No. 192573, October 22, 2014 RICARDO N.

AZUELO, Petitioner, v. ZAMECO II ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE,INC.,Respondent.
Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in litigation
committedoutsideofthetrialofthecase,wherebythedefeatedpartyisprevented
fromfullyexhibitinghissideofthecasebyfraudordeceptionpracticedonhim
byhisopponent,suchasbykeepinghimawayfromcourt, by giving him a false
promiseofacompromise,orwherethedefendantneverhadtheknowledgeofthesuit,
beingkeptinignorancebytheactsoftheplaintiff,orwhereanattorneyfraudulentlyor
withoutauthorityconnivesathisdefeat.60(Emphasissupplied)
G.R. No. 192026, October 01, 2014 AUTOMAT

REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LITO
CECILIA AND LEONOR LIM, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES
MARCIANO DELA CRUZ, SR. AND OFELIA DELA CRUZ,
Respondents.
A.M. No. P143252 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 082960
P],October14,2014JUDGEJUANGABRIELH.ALANO,
Complainant,v.PADMAL.SAHI,COURTINTERPRETER,
MUNICIPALCIRCUITTRIALCOURT,MALUSO,BASILAN,
Respondent.
Anactionforannulmentbasedonextrinsicfraudmustbebroughtwithinfouryearsfromdiscovery.61
Petitionersallegedthattheyweremadeawareoftheadoptiononlyin2005.Thefilingofthispetition
onOctober18,2007iswithintheperiodallowedbytherules.
G.R. No. 172505, October 01, 2014 ANTONIO M.

GARCIA, Petitioner, v. FERRO CHEMICALS, INC.,
Respondent.
Thebadgesoffraudarepresentinthiscase.
First,thepetitionforadoptionwasfiledinaplacethathadnorelationtoanyoftheparties.Josewas
a resident of Laoag City, llocos Norte.62 Larry and Lilibeth were residents of Barangay 6, Laoag
City.63JedandReginawereborninSanNicolas,IlocosNorte.64RosarioandJoannewereresidents
ofParaaqueCity,Manila.65Thepetitionforadoption,however,wasfiledintheRegionalTrialCourt
of Batac, Ilocos Norte.66 The trial court gave due course to the petition on Jose's bare allegation in
his petition that he was a resident of Batac,67 even though it is admitted in the Home Study Report
thathewasapracticinglawyerinLaoagCity.68
G.R. No. 174938, October 01, 2014 GERARDO

LANUZA,JR.ANDANTONIOO.OLBES,Petitioners,v.BF
CORPORATION, SHANGRILA PROPERTIES, INC.,
ALFREDO C. RAMOS, RUFO B. COLAYCO, MAXIMO G.
LICAUCOIII,ANDBENJAMINC.RAMOS,Respondents.
G.R.No.206234,October22,2014HEIRSOFJULIO
SOBREMONTE AND FELIPA LABAPIS SOBREMONTE,
NAMELY, MARIA LOURDES SOBREMONTE DE NORBE,
DIOSCORA SOBREMONTE DE BUSLON, NESTOR L.
SOBREMONTE, AVELINA SOBREMONTE DE DELIGERO,
HELENSOBREMONTEDECABASE,LAURASOBREMONTE
DE DAGOY AND RODULFO LABAPIS REPOLLO, ALL
REPRESENTEDBYAVELINASOBREMONTEDELIGEROAS
THEIR ATTORNEYINFACT, Petitioners, v. COURT OF
APPEALS, HONORABLE VIRGILIO REYES, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM AND FELICIANO TAPIL, MARCELO
BAYNO, VICENTE BAYNO, ROMUALDO DIAPANA,
HILARIORECTA,NEMESIARECTA,POLICARPIORECTA,
AMPARO
R.
DIAPANA,
BASILIO
SAYSON
BUENAVENTURA BAYNO AND BASILIO BAFLOR,
Respondent.
Second,usingtheprocessofdelayedregistration,69JosewasabletosecurebirthcertificatesforJed
andReginashowinghimtobethefatherandLarryasmerelytheinformant.70Worsestillisthattwo
different sets of fraudulent certificates were procured: one showing that Jose and Lilibeth were
married on December 4, 1986 in Manila,71 and another wherein the portion for the mother's name
was not filled in at all.72 The birth certificates of Jed and Regina from the National Statistics Office,
however, show that their father was Larry R. Rentegrado.73 These certificates are in clear
contradictiontothebirthcertificatessubmittedbyJosetothetrialcourtinsupportofhispetitionfor
adoption.
Third, Jose blatantly lied to the trial court when he declared that his motivation for adoption was
because he and his wife, Rosario, were childless,74 to the prejudice of their daughter, Joanne. The
consentofRosariototheadoptionwasalsodisputedbyRosarioandallegedtobefraudulent.75
G.R. No. 163654, October 08, 2014 BPI EXPRESS

CARD CORPORATION,* Petitioner, v. MA. ANTONIA R.
ARMOVIT,Respondent.
G.R.No.164277,October08,2014FEU.QUIJANO,
Petitioner,v.ATTY.DARYLLA.AMANTE,Respondent.
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. PABLITO ANDAYA Y
REANO,AccusedAppellant.
All these tactics were employed by Jose, not only to induce the trial court in approving his petition,
butalsotopreventRosarioandJoannefromparticipatingintheproceedingsoropposingthepetition.
The appellate court erroneously classified the fraud employed by Jose as intrinsic on the basis that
they were "forged instruments or perjured testimonies"76 presented during the trial. It failed to
understand,however,thatfraudisconsideredintrinsicwhentheotherpartywaseitherpresentatthe
trial or was a participant in the proceedings when such instrument or testimony was presented in
court,thus:
G.R. No. 169568, October 22, 2014 ROLANDO

ROBLES, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. CLARA C. ESPIRITU,
Petitioner,
v.
FERNANDO
FIDEL
YAPCINCO,
PATROCINIO B. YAPCINCO, MARIA CORAZON B.
YAPCINCO, AND MARIA ASUNCION B. YAPCINCO
FRONDA,Respondents.
[I]ntrinsic fraud refers to the acts of a party at a trial that prevented a fair and just
determinationofthecase,butthedifferenceisthattheactsorthings,likefalsification
and false testimony, could have been litigated and determined at the trial or
adjudicationofthecase.Inotherwords,intrinsicfrauddoesnotdeprivethepetitioner
of his day in court because he can guard against that kind of fraud through so many
means,includingathoroughtrialpreparation,askillful,crossexamination,resortingto
the modes of discovery, and proper scientific or forensic applications. Indeed, forgery
of documents and evidence for use at the trial and perjury in court testimony have
beenregardedasnotpreventingtheparticipationofanypartyintheproceedings,and
arenot,therefore,constitutiveofextrinsicfraud.77(Emphasissupplied)
A.M. No. P143278 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09

3222P],October21,2014CONCERNEDCITIZENSOF
NAVAL, BILIRAN, Complainants, v. FLORANTE F.
RALAR, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,BRANCH37,CAIBIRAN,BILIRAN,Respondent.
G.R.No.200857,October22,2014FVRSKILLSAND
When fraud is employed by a party precisely to prevent the participation of any other interested
4/8
SERVICES EXPONENTS, INC. (SKILLEX), FULGENCIO V.
RANAANDMONINAR.BURGOS,Petitioners,v.JOVERT
SEVA, JOSUEL V. VALENCERINA, JANET ALCAZAR,
ANGELITO AMPARO, BENJAMIN ANAEN, JR., JOHN
HILBERTBARBA,BONIFACIOBATANG,JR.,VALERIANO
BINGCO, JR., RONALD CASTRO, MARLON CONSORTE,
ROLANDO CORNELIO, EDITO CULDORA, RUEL DUNCIL,
MERV1NFLORES,LORDGALISIM,SOTEROGARCIA,JR.,
REYGONZALES,DANTEISIP,RYANISMEN,JOELJUNIO,
CARLITO LATOJA, ZALDY MARRA, MICHAEL PANTANO,
GLENN PILOTON, NORELDO QUIRANTE, ROEL RANCE,
RENANTE ROSARIO AND LEONARDA TANAEL,
Respondents.
party, as in this case, then the fraud is extrinsic, regardless of whether the fraud was committed
throughtheuseofforgeddocumentsorperjuredtestimonyduringthetrial.
A.M. No. P092673 (A.M. OCA IPI No. 00857P),

October21,2014FRUMENCIOE.PULGAR,Petitioner,
v.PAULM.RESURRECCIONANDMARICARM.EUGENIO,
Respondents.
ARTICLEVII
VIOLATIONSANDPENALTIES
Jose's actions prevented Rosario and Joanne from having a reasonable opportunity to contest the
adoption.HadRosarioandJoannebeenallowedtoparticipate,thetrialcourtwouldhavehesitatedto
grantJose'spetitionsincehefailedtofulfillthenecessaryrequirementsunderthelaw.Therecanbe
no other conclusion than that because of Jose's acts, the trial court granted the decree of adoption
underfraudulentcircumstances.
The law itself provides for penal sanctions for those who violate its provisions. Under Article VII,
Section21ofRepublicActNo.8552:
SEC.21.ViolationsandPenalties.
(a) Thepenaltyofimprisonmentrangingfromsix(6)yearsandone(1)daytotwelve
(12) years and/or a fine not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), but not
more than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) at the discretion of the
courtshallbeimposedonanypersonwhoshallcommitanyofthefollowingacts:
(i) obtaining consent for an adoption through coercion, undue influence, fraud,
impropermaterialinducement,orothersimilaracts
(ii) noncompliance with the procedures and safeguards provided by the law for
adoptionor
(iii) subjectingorexposingthechildtobeadoptedtodanger,abuse,orexploitation.
(b) Any person who shall cause the fictitious registration of the birth of a child under
thename(s)ofaperson(s)whoisnothis/herbiologicalparent(s)shallbeguiltyof
simulation of birth, and shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium period
andafinenotexceedingFiftythousandpesos(P50.000.00).(Emphasissupplied)
G.R.No.166441,October08,2014NORBERTOCRUZ
Y BARTOLOME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
G.R. No. 175507, October 08, 2014 RAMON CHING
AND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, v.
JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE1 AND
LUCINASANTOS,Respondents.
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. AICHI FORGING
COMPANYOFASIA,INC.,Respondent.
PHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,v.EDWARDADRIANOY
SALES,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 204964, October 15, 2014 REMIGIO D.
ESPIRITU
AND
NOELAGUSTIN,
Petitioners,
v.
LUTGARDA TORRES DEL ROSARIO REPRESENTED BY
SYLVIAR.ASPERILLA,Respondents.
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. BURMEISTER
AND WAIN SCANDINAVIAN CONTRACTOR MINDANAO,
INC.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 173988, October 08, 2014 FELINA
ROSALDES,Petitioner,v.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 200454, October 22, 2014 HOLY TRINITY
REALTY&DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,Petitioner,v.
VICTORIO DELA CRUZ, LORENZO MANALAYSAY,
RICARDO MARCELO, JR. AND LEONCIO DE GUZMAN,
Respondents.
G.R.
No.
191090,
October
13,
2014
EXTRAORDINARY
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. HERMINIA F. SAMSONBICO AND ELY B.
FLESTADO,Respondents.
Unfortunately, Jose's death carried with it the extinguishment of any of his criminal liabilities.78
Republic Act No. 8552 also fails to provide any provision on the status of adoption decrees if the
adoption is found to have been obtained fraudulently. Petitioners also cannot invoke Article VI,
Section 19 of Republic Act No. 855279 since rescission of adoption can only be availed of by the
adoptee.Petitioners,therefore,areleftwithnootherremedyinlawotherthantheannulmentofthe
judgment.
The fraud employed in this case has been to Joanne's prejudice. There is reason to believe that
Joanne has grown up having never experienced the love and care of a father, her parents having
separatedayearafterherbirth.Shehasneverevenbenefitedfromanymonetarysupportfromher
father.Despitealltheseadversities,JoannewasabletoobtainamedicaldegreefromtheUniversity
of the Philippines College of Medicine 80 and is now working as a doctor in Canada.81 These
accomplishments,however,arepoorsubstitutesiftheinjusticedoneuponherisallowedtocontinue.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision dated October 16, 2000 of the Regional Trial
CourtofBatac,IlocosNorte,Branch17inSP.Proc.No.344517isrenderedNULLandVOID.
SOORDERED.
Carpio,(Chairperson),DelCastillo,Mendoza,andReyes,*JJ.,concur.
Endnotes:
G.R.No.160107,October22,2014SPOUSESJAIME
SEBASTIAN AND EVANGELINE SEBASTIAN, Petitioners,
v. BPI FAMILY BANK, INC., CARMELITA ITAPO AND
BENJAMINHAO,Respondents.
G.R.No.187702,October22,2014SECURITIESAND
EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Petitioner,
v.
THE
HONORABLE
COURT
OF
APPEALS,
OMICO
CORPORATION,EMILIOS.TENGANDTOMMYKINHING
TIA, Respondents. G.R. NO. 189014 ASTRA
SECURITIES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. OMICO
CORPORATION,EMILIOS.TENGANDTOMMYKINHING
TIA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014 GODOFREDO
ENRILE AND DR. FREDERICK ENRILE, Petitioners, v.
HON. DANILO A. MANALASTAS (AS PRESIDING JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS BULACAN, BR.
VII), HON. ERANIO G. CEDILLO, SR., (AS PRESIDING
JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MEYCAUAYAN,
BULACAN, BR. 1) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 187581, October 20, 2014 PHILIPPINE
BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, Petitioner, v. BASIC
POLYPRINTERS AND PACKAGING CORPORATION,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 197442, October 22, 2014 MAJESTIC
FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO., INC., Petitioner, v.
JOSED.TITO,Respondent.CORNELIOMENDOZAAND
PAULINACRUZ,PetitionersIntervenors,v.JOSENAZAL
ANDROSITANAZAL,RespondentsIntervenors.
G.R. No. 167225, October 22, 2014 RADIO
MINDANAO NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. MICHAEL
MAXIMOR.AMURAOIII,Respondent.
PHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,v.DEMOCRITOPARAS,
AccusedAppellants.
*DesignatedactingmemberperSpecialOrderNo.1844datedOctober14,2014.
1Rollo,pp.329.
2 Id. at 3762. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar
Fernando (Chairperson) and concurred in by Associate 'Justices Rebecca De Guia

SalvadorandRosalindaAsuncionVicenteoftheSpecialFormerSeventhDivision.
3Id.at37.
4Id.at3839and48.
5Id.at39and48.
6Id.at49.
7Id.at109110.
8Id.at109.
9Id.at52.
10Id.at79.
11Id.at7982.
12Id.at80.
13Id.at7980.
14Id.at80and8384.
15Id.at80.
16Id.at81.
G.R. No. 205249, October 15, 2014 SPOUSES

BENEDICTANDSANDRAMANUEL,Petitioners,v.RAMON
ONG,Respondent.
17Id.at80.
G.R.No.208976,October13,2014THEHONORABLE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v.
LEOVIGILDODELOSREYES,JR.Respondent.
19Id.at87.
18Id.at8790.
5/8
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. ARNEL VILLALBA Y
DURAN AND RANDY VILLALBA Y SARCO, Accused
Appellants.
20Id.at91.
G.R.No.181760,October14,2014ATTY.ANACLETO
B. BUENA, JR., MNSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XVI, CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION, AUTONOMOUS REGION IN
MUSLIMMINDANAO,COTABATOCITY,Petitioner,v.DR.
SANGCADD.BENITO,Respondent.
22Id.at168.
PHILIPPINES,
PlaintiffAppellee,
v.
LEONARDO
CATAYTAYYSILVANO,AccusedAppellant.
25Id.at174.
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. EXMAYOR CARLOS
ESTONILO, SR., MAYOR REINARIO REY ESTONILO,
EDELBRANDO ESTONILO A.K.A. EDEL ESTONILO,
EUTIQUIANO
ITCOBANES
A.K.A.
NONONG
ITCOBANES, NONOY ESTONILOAT LARGE, TITING
BOOCAT LARGE, GALI ITCOBANESAT LARGE,
ORLANDO TAGALOG MATERDAM A.K.A. NEGRO
MATERDAM,ANDCALVINDELACRUZA.K.A.BULLDOG
DELACRUZ,Accused,EXMAYORCARLOSESTONILO,
SR.,MAYORREINARIOREYESTONILO,EDELBRANDO
ESTONILO A.K.A. EDEL ESTONILO, EUTIQUIANO
ITCOBANES A.K.A. NONONG ITCOBANES, AND
CALVIN DELA CRUZ A.K.A. BULLDOG DELA CRUZ,
AccusedAppellants.
27Id.at176.
G.R. No. 187061, October 08, 2014 CELERINA J.

SANTOS, Petitioner, v. RICARDO T. SANTOS,
Respondent.
G.R.No.188801,October15,2014ROSARIOMATA
CASTRO AND JOANNE BENEDICTA CHARISSIMA M.
CASTRO, A.K.A. "MARIA SOCORRO M. CASTRO" AND
"JAYROSEM.CASTRO,"Petitioners,v.JOSEMARIAJED
LEMUEL GREGORIO AND ANA MARIA REGINA
GREGORIO,Respondents.
A.M. No. P143237 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 093256
P],October21,2014JEANPAULV.GILLERA,SUZETTE
P.GILLERA,ATTY.JILLINAM.GERODIAS,ANDIBARRA
BARCEBAL,Complainants,v.MARIACONSUELOJOIEA.
LEONEN,ANDFAJARDO,SHERIFFIV,REGIONALTRIAL
COURT,BRANCH93,SANPEDRO,LAGUNA,Respondent.
G.R. No. 177332, October 01, 2014 NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CITY OF
CABANATUAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS CITY MAYOR,
HON.HONORATOPEREZ,Respondents.
G.R. No. 188487, October 22, 2014 VAN D. LUSPO,
Petitioner, v, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. G.R. No. 188541 SUPT. ARTURO H.
MONTANO AND MARGARITA B. TUGAOEN, Petitioners,
v.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.G.R.No.
188556C/INSP.SALVADORC.DURAN,SR.,Petitioner,
v.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.
G.R. No. 203254, October 08, 2014 DR. JOY
MARGATE LEE, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. NERI A. ILAGAN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 164686, October 22, 2014 FOREST HILLS
GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Petitioner, v.
GARDPRO,INC.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 173548, October 15, 2014 ONOFRE
ANDRES, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY:
FERDINAND, ROSALINA, ERIBERTO, FROILAN, MA.
CLEOFE,NELSON,GERMAN,GLORIA,ALEXANDER,MAY,
ABRAHAM, AND AFRICA, ALL SURNAMED ANDRES,
Petitioners,
v.
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
BANK,
Respondents.
G.R. Nos. 17693536, October 20, 2014 ZAMBALES
II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II) BOARD
OF DIRECTORS, NAMELY, JOSE S. DOMINGUEZ
(PRESIDENT), ISAIAS Q. VIDUA (VICEPRESIDENT),
VICENTE M . BARRETO (SECRETARY), JOSE M.
SANTIAGO (TREASURER), JOSE NASERIV C. DOLOJAN,
JUAN D. FERNANDEZ AND HONORIO L. DILAG, JR.
(MEMBERS), Petitioners, v. CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA), REPRESENTED BY
DOMINADOR GALLARDO, DAVID ESPOSO, CRISTITA
DORADO, EDWIN CORPUZ, E. ROGER DOROPAN,
JOSEFINA RAMIREZ, FERNANDO BOGNOT, JR.,
CARMELITA DE GUZMAN, MAXIMO DE LOS SANTOS,
AURELIO FASTIDIO, BUENAVENTURA CELIS, ROBERTO
LADRILLO, CORAZON ACAYAN, CARLITO CARREON,
EDUARDOGARCIA,MARCIALVILORIA,FILETODELEON
AND MANUEL LEANDER, Respondents ZAMBALES II
ELECTRICCOOPERATIVE,INC.(ZAMECOII)BOARDOF
DIRECTORS,JOSES.DOMINGUEZ(PRESIDENT),ISAIAS
Q. VIDUA (VICEPRESIDENT), VICENTE M . BARRETO
(SECRETARY),JOSEM.SANTIAGO(TREASURER),JOSE
NASERIV C. DOLOJAN, JUAN D. FERNANDEZ AND
HONORIO L. DILAG, JR. (MEMBERS), Petitioners, v.
NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA)
NEAOFFICE OF THE ADMINISRATIVE COMMITTEE,
ENGR. PAULINO T. LOPEZ AND CASTILLEJOS
CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
(CASCONA),
Respondents.
21Id.at168173.
23Id.at169170.
24Id.at171.
26Id.at175176.
28Id.at122.
29Id.at38.
30Id.at9.
31Id.at14.
32Id.at40.
33Id.at153158and226227.
34Id.at41and136.
35Id.at59.
36Id.at5960.
37Id.at60.
38Id.at6061.
39Id.at9899.
40Id.at13.
41Id.at1415.
42Id.at18.
43Id.at22.
44Id.at2627.
45Id.at306.
40Id.at307.
47Id.at311and313.
48Id.at313.
49RulesofCivilProcedure,Rule47,sec.1.
50
G.R. No. 161122, September 24, 2012, 681 SCRA580 [Per J. Bersamin, First
Division].
51 Id. at 586587, citing People v. Bitanga, 552 Phil. 686, 693 (2007) [Per J. Austria
Martinez, Third Division] Fraginal v. Heirs of Toribia Belmonte Paranal, 545 Phil. 425,
432 (2007) [Per J. Austria Martinez, Third Division] Macalalag v. Ombudsman, 468
Phil. 918, 923 (2004) [Per J. Vitug, Third Division] Apo Fruits Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 622 Phil. 215, 231 (2009) [Per J. Bersamin, En Bane] Pea v. Government
ServiceInsuranceSystem(GSIS),533Phil.670,689690(2006)[PerJ.ChicoNazario,
First Division] GallardoCorro v. Gallardo, 403 Phil. 498, 511 (2001) [Per J. Bellosillo,
SecondDivision].
52RULESofCivilProcedure,Rule47,sec.2andsec.3.
53Barcov.CourtofAppeals,465Phil.39,57(2004)[PerJ.Tinga,SecondDivision].
54Bulawan v. Aquende, G.R. No. 182819, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 585, 594 [Per J.
Carpio, Second Division], citing Alaban v. Court of Appeals, 507 Phil. 682, 694 (2005)
[PerJ.Tinga,SecondDivision].
55Republicv.CourtofAppealsandZenaidaBobiles,G.R.No.92326,January24,1992,
205 SCRA 356, 363 [Per J. Regalado, Second Division], citing Ramos, et al. v. Central
BankofthePhilippines,148BPhil.1047,1066(1971)[PerJ.J.B.L.Reyes,EnBane].
56DomesticAdoptionActof1998.
57606Phil.82(2009)[PerJ.Carpio,FirstDivision].
58Id.at8990,citingRepublicv.Toledano,G.R.No.94147,June8,1994,233SCRA9,
13[PerJ.Puno,SecondDivision].
59
G.R. No. 187409, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 323 [Per J. Reyes, Second
Division].
60Id.at327,citingAmihanBusLines,Inc.v.RomarsInternationalGasesCorporation,
G.R.No.180819,July5,2010,623SCRA406,411[PerJ.Nachura,SecondDivision].
6/8
61RULESOFCIVILPROCEDURE,Rule47,sec.3.
62Rollo,p.139.
63Id.at138.
64Id.at88.
65Id.at45
66Id.at8790.
67Id.at109
68Id.at80.
69Id.at155and158.
70Id.at153and156.
71Id.at154and157.
72Id.at153and156.
73Id.at226227
74Id.at80.
75Id.at14.Theallegedlyfraudulentaffidavitofconsentwasnotattachedintherollo.
76Id.at61.
77PinausukanSeafoodHousev.FarEastBankandTrust,G.R.No.159926,January20,
2014[PerJ.Bersamin,FirstDivision],citingYbaezv.CourtofAppeals,323Phil.643,
656(1996)[PerJ.Francisco,ThirdDivision]andStraitTimesInc.v.CourtofAppeals,
356Phil.217,226(1998)[PerJ.Panganiban,FirstDivision].
78Rev.Pen.Code,art.89.
79ArticleVIofRep.Act.No.8552provides:
SEC.19.GroundsforRescissionofAdoption. 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
maltreatment by the adopter(s) despite having undergone counseling (b) attempt on
thelifeoftheadoptee(c)sexualassaultorviolenceor(d)abandonmentandfailure
tocomplywithparentalobligations.
Adoption,beinginthebestinterestofthechild,shallnotbesubjecttorescissionbythe
adopter(s).However,theadopter(s)maydisinherittheadopteeforcausesprovidedin
Article919oftheCivilCode.
80Rollo,p.169.
81Id.at5.
Adsby Google
Adsby Google
Adsby Google
FamilyLaw LawGR Castro Annulment

Annulment Castro
NoGR
VSGR
CourtCasesCourtGRCaseGRJoanneGR
BacktoHome|BacktoMain
QUICKSEARCH
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2013
2014
2015
2016
2012
7/8
MainIndicesoftheLibrary>
|Disclaimer|EmailRestrictions
Copyright19982016ChanRoblesPublishingCompany
Go!
ChanRobles VirtualLawLibrary |chanrobles.com
RED
8/8

Castro Vs Gregorio

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Castro Vs Gregorio

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

3/30/2016 G.R.No.188801,October15,2014ROSARIOMATACASTROANDJOANNEBENEDICTACHARISSIMAM.CASTRO,A.K.A.

PhilippineSupremeCourtJurisprudence>Year2014>October2014Decisions>G.R. No. 188801, October 15,

G.R. No. 198528, October 13, 2014 MAGSAYSAY

G.R. No. 189358, October 08, 2014 CENTENNIAL

G.R. No. 198636, October 08, 2014 ESPERANZA C.

G.R. No. 183272, October 15, 2014 SUN LIFE OF

G.R. No. 185745, October 15, 2014 SPOUSES

G.R. No. 197228, October 08, 2014 DUTY FREE

G.R. No. 191838, October 20, 2014 YKR

G.R. No. 192518, October 15, 2014 PHILIPPINE

G.R. No. 194884, October 22, 2014 IMASEN

G.R. No. 195832, October 01, 2014 FORMERLY INC

G.R. No. 192573, October 22, 2014 RICARDO N.

G.R. No. 192026, October 01, 2014 AUTOMAT

G.R. No. 172505, October 01, 2014 ANTONIO M.

G.R. No. 174938, October 01, 2014 GERARDO

G.R. No. 163654, October 08, 2014 BPI EXPRESS

G.R. No. 169568, October 22, 2014 ROLANDO

A.M. No. P143278 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09

A.M. No. P092673 (A.M. OCA IPI No. 00857P),

Fernando (Chairperson) and concurred in by Associate 'Justices Rebecca De Guia

G.R. No. 205249, October 15, 2014 SPOUSES

G.R. No. 187061, October 08, 2014 CELERINA J.

SEC.19.GroundsforRescissionofAdoption. Upon petition of the adoptee, with the

FamilyLaw LawGR Castro Annulment

ChanRobles VirtualLawLibrary |chanrobles.com

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi