Steps and court procedures in domestic adoption

The Supreme Court has issued guidelines in petitions for adoptions under RA 8552 and RA
8043. Basically, a petition for domestic adoption under RA 8552 will go through these steps:
[1] A lawyer prepares the petition for the person or persons wanting to adopt. The petition
includes documents like birth certificates, marriage certificate, proof of financial capacity
(like ITR, bank deposit, etc), clearances (barangay, police, NBI, fiscal, court), and others as
proof of good moral character, good health, etc.

[2] Upon payment of the filing or docket fee, the petition is raffled to a Family Court (of the
city nearest the place where the petitioner resides). If the petition is sufficient in form and
substance, the court issues an order, usually within a month after the filing of the petition,
setting the case for initial hearing and ordering the court social worker to conduct a case
study and home visit.

[3] The court order is published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three
weeks. The newspaper is chosen by raffle conducted by the Office of the Clerk of Court, in
compliance with a Supreme Court circular. If a small time newspaper wins in the raffle, the
total cost for the publication could be as low as Php 7,000. But if a big time newspaper like
the Bulletin or the Inquirer wins the raffle, the total cost could be as high as Php 50,000.

[4] Before the initial hearing, the social worker conducts a case study and home visit. The
social worker submits his investigation report and recommendations to the court before the
initial hearing.

[5] On the date of the initial hearing, the petitioner and the prospective adoptee must be
present. The lawyer presents what are known as the jurisdictional facts (petition, proof of
publication in newspaper, notice to the Office of the Solicitor General, etc).

[6] If there is no opposition to the petition for adoption by any party, then the lawyer asks
the court permission for an ex-parte presentation of evidence, done before only the court
stenographer and the court appointed commissioner (the branch clerk of court). The court
however can require presentation of evidence in open court. All in all, the case could take
up to about a year to finish.

[7] If the court decision is favorable and there is no appeal by any party, then the court
issues a Certificate of Finality. The lawyer then coordinates with the Local Civil Registrar (of
the town or city where the court is located, and the adoptee’s birthplace) and the National
Statistics Office for the issuance of a new birth certificate bearing the petitioner’s surname.
Why should an unwed mother adopt her own child?

Legally speaking, the relationship between any unwed mother and her child is illegitimate.
In order to legitimize the relationship between an unwed mother and the illegitimate child,
the mother must file a petition under RA 8552, our domestic adoption law.

What if an unwed mother gets married subsequently to the biological father?

The legal remedy would not be adoption under RA 8552 but legitimation under Articles 177
to 182 of the Family Code (that is, if there were no legal obstacles when the child was
conceived or born).

What if an unwed mother gets married to a man (not the biological father) who wants to
adopt her child?

RA 8552 provides that husband and wife must adopt jointly. In this situation, the result
would be (1) the relationship between the mother and the child will become legitimate, and
(2) the man will acquire parental authority over the child.

Is the consent of the father of an illegitimate child required in adoption?

Section 9, paragraph (b) of RA 8552 states that the written consent of the biological
parent/s is necessary. UP College of Law professor Danilo L. Concepcion in his article
“Domestic Adoption: Law and Procedure” (IBP Journal, March 2009, Vol. 34, No. 1) states
that the reason why RA 8552 requires such consent is that their parental authority over
child (the prospective adoptee) will be terminated. Several women have e-mailed about this
situation. Either they do not know where the biological father of their illegitimate children is
or the father is making things difficult for them. One woman even told me that the
biological father asked her for money in exchange for his written consent.

Prof. Concepcion argues (and I agree with him) that because an illegitimate child is under
the sole parental authority of the mother under Article 176 of the Family Code, then the
consent of the biological father is not necessary. Prof. Concepcion states that the problem is
with the wording of the law. He says that instead of “biological parent/s” the law should
have used “legal parent/s” instead.

What can women with illegitimate children do in this kind of situation? They can petition
Congress to amend RA 8552 so that the written consent of the father should not be
required. Or they can file a petition for declaratory relief before a competent court asking
that the term “biological parent/s” be interpreted to mean “legal parent/s..

Joint adoption by husband and wife is mandatory

Please take note that Section 7 of RA 8552 provides that a husband and wife shall jointly
adopt. This is a mandatory requirement with the following exceptions:
(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or

(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, However,
that the other spouse has signified his/her consent thereto; or

(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.

In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one spouse adopts the illegitimate son/daughter
of the other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses.
The mandatory requirement is in consonance with the concept of joint parental authority
over the child, which is the ideal situation. 7 As the child to be adopted is elevated to the
level of a legitimate child, it is but natural to require the spouses to adopt jointly. The rule
also insures harmony between the spouses.

Is the adoptee’s right to inherit from both the adoptive and biological parents under the
Family Code no longer true under RA 8552?

The Family Code provisions on adoption have been superseded by RA 8552. While Article
189 of the Family Code specifically provides that the adoptee has the right to inherit from
both the biological and adoptive parents, this provision does not appear in RA 8552. The law
only states:
Sec. 18. Succession. — In legal and intestate succession, the adopter(s) and the adoptee
shall have reciprocal rights of succession without distinction from legitimate filiation.
However, if the adoptee and his/her biological parent(s) had left a will, the law on
testamentary succession shall govern.
It seems therefore that the right of an adopted child to inherit from both biological and
adoptive parents under the Family Code has been repealed by RA 8552. But, in law, implied
repeals are frowned upon. Thus, it may be argued that Article 189 of the Family Code is still
good law.

For issues regarding succession (“inheritance” in layman’s term) and adoption under RA
8552, please read “Revisiting the Philippine Laws on Adoption: Issues on Succession” from
the Ateneo Law Journal. Please also read the article on domestic adoption by UP Prof.
Concepcion which I mentioned above. Prof. Concepcion holds the same view I have that
those provisions of the Family Code that have not been expressly repealed by RA 8552 are
still applicable.

Rescission (revocation) of adoption by adoptive parents no longer allowed under RA 8552

The Family Code allowed adoptive parents to apply for judicial rescission or revocation of
the decree of adoption. For the child’s best interest, however, RA 8552 no longer allows
rescission by the adoptive parents. Only the adopted child can ask for the revocation of the
adoption.

What if the adopted child becomes wayward morally or ungrateful, or physically threatens
the adoptive parents? The legal remedy is to disinherit the child; please read my article
“Disinheriting children and descendants, legitimate as well as illegitimate”.

What about adoption by spouses where one is a former Filipino citizen and the other is a
natural-born citizen of another country?

The Supreme Court decided this issue in the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Toledano
G.R. No. 94147 June 8, 1994. This case was decided under the provisions of the Family Code
on adoption which have been superseded by RA 8043 and RA 8552. But the point of
contention in this case (mandatory joint adoption by both husband and wife under Article
185 of the Family Code) has been carried over to RA 8552, specifically, Section 7.
The facts of the Toledano case
On February 21, 1990, in a verified petition filed before the Regional Trial Court of Iba,
Zambales, private respondents spouses Clouse sought to adopt the minor, Solomon Joseph
Alcala, the younger brother of private respondent Evelyn A. Clouse. In an Order issued on
March 12, 1990, the petition was set for hearing on April 18, 1990. The said Order was
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province of Zambales and City of
Olongapo for three (3) consecutive weeks.

The principal evidence disclose that private respondent Alvin A. Clouse is a natural born
citizen of the United States of America. He married Evelyn, a Filipino on June 4, 1981 at
Olongapo City. On August 19, 1988, Evelyn became a naturalized citizen of the United States
of America in Guam. They are physically, mentally, morally, and financially capable of
adopting Solomon, a twelve (12) year old minor.

Since 1981 to 1984, then from November 2, 1989 up to the present, Solomon Joseph Alcala
was and has been under the care and custody of private respondents. Solomon gave his
consent to the adoption. His mother, Nery Alcala, a widow, likewise consented to the
adoption due to poverty and inability to support and educate her son.

Mrs. Nila Corazon Pronda, the social worker assigned to conduct the Home and Child Study,
favorably recommended the granting of the petition for adoption.

Finding that private respondents have all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
provided by law and that the adoption will redound to the best interest and welfare of the
minor, respondent judge rendered a decision on June 20, 1990, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court grants the petition for adoption filed by Spouses Alvin A. Clouse and
Evelyn A. Clouse and decrees that the said minor be considered as their child by adoption.
To this effect, the Court gives the minor the rights and duties as the legitimate child of the
petitioners. Henceforth, he shall be known as SOLOMON ALCALA CLOUSE.

The Court dissolves parental authority bestowed upon his natural parents and vests
parental authority to the herein petitioners and makes him their legal heir. Pursuant to
Article 36 of P.D. 603 as amended, the decree of adoption shall be effective as of the date
when the petition was filed. In accordance with Article 53 of the same decree, let this
decree of adoption be recorded in the corresponding government agency, particularly the
Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Merida, Leyte where the minor was born. The said office
of the Local Civil Registrar is hereby directed to issue an amended certificate of live birth to
the minor adopted by the petitioners.

Let copies of this decision be furnished (sic) the petitioners, DSWD, Zambales Branch, Office
of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Merida, Leyte.
The Office of the Solicitor General appealed to the Supreme Court on a pure question of
law, that is, under Article 185 of the Family Code, the Clouse couple was not qualified to
adopt.
The ruling of the Supreme Court
Under Articles 184 and 185 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 209, otherwise known as “The
Family Code of the Philippines”, private respondents spouses Clouse are clearly barred from
adopting Solomon Joseph Alcala.

Article 184, paragraph (3) of Executive Order No. 209 expressly enumerates the persons
who are not qualified to adopt, viz.:

(3) An alien, except:

(a) A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity;

(b) One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his or her Filipino spouse; or
(c) One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his or her spouse
a relative by consanguinity of the latter.Aliens not included in the foregoing exceptions may
adopt Filipino children in accordance with the rules on inter-country adoption as may be
provided by law.

There can be no question that private respondent Alvin A. Clouse is not qualified to adopt
Solomon Joseph Alcala under any of the exceptional cases in the aforequoted provision.

In the first place, he is not a former Filipino citizen but a natural born citizen of the United
States of America.

In the second place, Solomon Joseph Alcala is neither his relative by consanguinity nor the
legitimate child of his spouse.

In the third place, when private respondents spouses Clouse jointly filed the petition to
adopt Solomon Joseph Alcala on February 21, 1990, private respondent Evelyn A. Clouse
was no longer a Filipino citizen. She lost her Filipino citizenship when she was naturalized as
a citizen of the United States in 1988.

Private respondent Evelyn A. Clouse, on the other hand, may appear to qualify pursuant to
paragraph 3(a) of Article 184 of E.O. 209. She was a former Filipino citizen. She sought to
adopt her younger brother. Unfortunately, the petition for adoption cannot be granted in
her favor alone without violating Article 185 which mandates a joint adoption by the
husband and wife. It reads:

Article 185. Husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in the following cases:

(1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or
(2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other.

Article 185 requires a joint adoption by the husband and wife, a condition that must be read
along together with Article 184.
In sum, the Supreme Court ruled that the adoption must be filed jointly by husband and
wife, unless they fall under the exceptions. Also, when adopting jointly, each one of them
must be qualified to adopt on his own right.
Modified procedure for relative adoption cases under RA 8043 (as approved by the ICAB on
August 30, 2007)

“Relative Adoption” as applies to inter-country adoption refers to the adoption of Filipino

child/children by relatives residing abroad within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguity.

Former Filipinos permanently residing abroad and/or foreigners intending to undertake

either local adoption (the filing and the finalization of the adoption is done in the Philippines
and have the intention of bringing the adoptive child to their country of residence) or
through the inter-country adoption route MUST first secure the approval of the Central
Authority on Inter-country Adoption in the country of residence before filing any adoption
petition. Adoption applicants from the USA must first secure their suitability and eligibility
to adopt (I800A) from the USA Central Authority on Inter-Country Adoption. Canada based
adoption applicants obtain such approval from the Central Authority on Inter-country
Adoption of the Province or Territory of residence.
1. The Questionnaire for Relative Adoptive Applicants (ICAB Form No.2) which can be
downloaded from the ICAB website shall be submitted by the prospective adoptive parents
(PAPs) to the Central Authorities (CAs)/ Foreign Adoption Agencies(FAAs). The CAs/FAAs
shall endorse to ICAB the completed Questionnaire for Relative Adoptive Applicants (QRAA)
with the agency's assessment and recomendation on the prospective adoptive parents.

2. If the CA/FAA favorably recommends the PAPs, the ICAB social worker will then request
the CA/FAA to proceed with the preparation of the PAPs’ dossier. On the other hand, based
on the significant data on the child as indicated in the QRAA, the assigned ICAB Social
Worker will request the DSWD - Field Office (FO) to conduct the Child Study Report with
supporting documents. Periodic follow-ups will be made with the DSWD-FO. (The time
frame from request to ICAB’s receipt of the report will be 3-6 months. In situations where
the FO could not prepare the Child Study Report within the expected time frame in view of
heavy adoption caseload, the ICAB social worker will assist in the conduct of the CSR).

3. Once the ICAB receives from the DSWD-FO the child’s dossier and the complete adoption
application dossier of the PAPs from the CA or FAA, the ICAB social worker will prepare an
executive summary on the case with his/her recommendation on the child’s adoptive
placement for the disposition of the Board.
For more information, you can contact the ICAB at #2 Chicago St corner Ermin Garcia St.
Barangay Pinagkaisahan, Cubao, Quezon City, Philippines 1111; Telephone Nos:(632)721-
9781 to 82; 726-45-51;726-45-68 Loc. 807 (Regular) and 808/810 (Relative)
Fax No. (632)725-66-64; E-Mail address: adoption@icab.gov.ph; Website: www.icab.gov.ph

The contact list of ICAB counterpart organizations: Asia Pacific, Canada, Europe and USA.

Misinterpretation and misunderstanding of RA 9523

Republic Act 9523 “An Act Requiring Certification of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) to Declare A Child Legally Available For Adoption as a Prerequisite For
Adoption Proceedings” amended certain portions of RA 8552 , RA 8043, and Presidential
Decree No. 603 “Child and Youth Welfare Code”.

Contrary to erroneous reports in the media and the Internet, RA 9523 did not turn the
whole adoption process from a judicial proceeding under the Family Courts to an
administrative proceeding under the DSWD. RA 9253 applies only to surrendered,
abandoned, neglected, and dependent children who are subject to adoption.

Under RA 9523, the time period before a child is considered abandoned has been reduced
to a maximum of three months from the original minimum of six months. RA 9523 made the
declaration of abandonment of child “administrative in nature” which now requires just a
certification signed by the DSWD secretary instead of a judicial order. Because of the new
regulations, a child could be declared legally available for adoption in less than two months.
Previously, it took as long as three years in court proceedings for such a declaration.

But as Section 4 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9523 clearly states,
certain adoption proceedings in court do not require a “Certification Declaring a Child
Legally Available for Adoption”. These are:

[1] Adoption of an illegitimate child by any of his/her biological parent

[2] Adoption of a child by his/her step-parent
[3] Adoption of a child by a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity

Note: You might be interested in reading "Adoption group opposes ‘Orphan’ movie", a
Manila Bulletin article by Robert Requintina.