G.R. No.
85044 | June 3, 1992
Tamargo v. Court of Appeals
I. Recit-ready Summary
This case is a petition for review filed by Macario, Celso and Aurelia
Tamargo when the RTC and the CA dismissed the case because of the lapse
of the prescriptive period of the appeal. The case at hand is about the death
of Jennifer Tamargo at the hands of a 10-year-old Adelberto Bundoc after
the latter fired an air rifle at the former causing her death. The Criminal case
was dismissed for Adelberto was a minor who acted without discernment.
Going back to the civil proceedings, The Tamargos went after the natural
parents of Adelberto, Victor and Clara Bundoc, who at the time of the crime
had custody over Adelberto. The Bundoc spouses contended that they were
not the indispensible party in the case but it was to be the adopted parents of
Adelberto namely Sabas and Felisa Rapisura. The RTC found merit in the
argument of the Bundoc spouses ruling that the adopted parents are the
indispensible parties in the civil proceeding. The Tamargos filed a Motion
for Reconsideration, however during the pending of the MR the 15-day
prescription period to appeal had lapse thus when the RTC dismissed the
MR they were not able to appeal. The CA likewise followed the rule and
outright dismissed the case. The Supreme Court held that they may rule on
the case to prevent the service of injustice and they may suspend the
procedural rules. Likewise, they ruled that the parental custody being
transferred to the adoptee parents can not hold water thus the indispensible
party is not the spouses Rapisura but remain to be the natural parents the
spouses Bundoc.
II. Facts of the Case
Adelberto Bundoc imprudently fired at Jennifer Tamargo with an air
rifle causing injuries to her that led to her demise. A criminal case was filed
against Adelberto by the adopted father of Jennifer and the natural parents
of Celso and Aurelia Tamargo. The court dismissed the criminal case with
Aldelberto being a 10-year-old minor during the time and was exempted by
criminal liability because he acted without discernment. The Tamargos still
pursue to file for civil damages against the natural parents of Adelberto:
Victor and Clara Bundoc. After a month the court granted the adoption of
Adelberto to Sabas and Felisa Rapsura. The Bundoc spouses as a defense
said that they are not the indispensible party in the case as the adoption of
Adelberto extinguishes their parental custody over the child and the spouses
Rapsura are therefore liable. The RTC finding merit in the argument of the
Persons and Family Relations (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Orpheus
Parental Custody
Tamargo v. Court of Appeals
Bundoc spouses dismissed the case and ruled that the indispensible party is
the Rapsuras. The Tamargos filed a motion for reconsideration and during
the pendency the fifteen-day prescription period to file an appeal lapse. The
RTC denied the MR and subsequently denied the appeal for procedural
issues. The CA again dismissed the appeal on the same grounds leading to
this review by the Supreme Court.
III. Issue/s
1. W/N, the petitioner may still file the petition even if they lost their
right to appeal?
2. W/N, is parental authority has retroactive effect as to make
adopting parents the indispensible parties in a case for
damages against adopted child?
IV. Holding/s
1. Yes, in the prevention of serving injustice
The Court ruled that they have the power to review a case that they deem
necessary to be ruled on in the avoidance of doing an injustice.
2. No, the parental authority can not be regarded as retroactive in
effect as to make adopting parents as the indispensible party in
a case for damages against the adopted child.
The Court held the retroactive effect can only be applied to attain the
regular rights a child has as natural children consistent even if they
become adopted. Likewise and more importantly, parental authority
lies with who has custody of the child at the time of the crime and it
would prejudice unnecessarily the adopting parents to rule otherwise.
V. Law or Doctrine Applied
 Article 36 of the Child and Youth Welfare
Code. Decree of Adoption. — If, after considering the report of the
Department of Social Welfare or duly licensed child placement
agency and the evidence submitted before it, the court is satisfied
that the petitioner is qualified to maintain, care for, and educate the
child, that the trial custody period has been completed, and that the
best interests of the child will be promoted by the adoption, a
decree of adoption shall be entered, which shall be effective
as of the date the original petition was filed. The decree shall state
the name by which the child is thenceforth to be known.|||
PETITIONER: Macario, Celso, and Aurelia Tamargo 1
RESPONDENT: Court of Appeals
 G.R. No. 85044 | June 3, 1992
Tamargo v. Court of Appeals
 Art. 39 of Child and Youth Welfare
Code Effect of Adoption. — The adoption shall:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Dissolve the authority vested in the natural parents,
except where the adopter is the spouse of the surviving
natural parent
 Article 58 of Child and Youth Welfare Code, Torts — Parents
|||
and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child
under their parental authority in accordance with the Civil Code.
 Art. 221 of Family Code. Parents and other persons exercising
parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and
damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated
children living in their company and under their parental authority
subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.|||
 Art. 35 of Child and Youth Welfare Code Trial Custody. — No
Petition for adoption shall be finally granted unless and until the
adopting parents are given by the courts a supervised trial custody
period of at least six months to assess their adjustment and
emotional readiness for the legal union. During the period of trial
custody, parental authority shall be vested in the adopting parents
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY;
 At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself;
 That the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method, or form of attack.
VI. Disposition
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby
GRANTED DUE COURSE and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
6 September 1988, in C.A.-G.R. No. SP-15016 is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Petitioners' complaint filed before the trial court is hereby
REINSTATED and this case is REMANDED to that court for further
Persons and Family Relations (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Orpheus
Parental Custody
Tamargo v. Court of Appeals
proceedings consistent with this Decision. Costs against respondent Bundoc
spouses. This Decision is immediately executory.
VII. Additional Notes
 The Civil Code was still controlling at the time as the Family Code
was yet to be enacted during the procedure of this case, during the
decision of the Supreme Court the Family Code was now
controlling.
 Criminal Case was not outright dismissed like today because the
JJWA has not been enacted yet. Thus, the provision of 9-18 acting
with discernment rule is in effect.
 Even if there is a dismissal with the Criminal case there is still
cause of action to pursue a civil action.
 Cases filed
o Crime happened on October 20, 1982
o Adoption filed on December 10, 1981
o Adoption granted on November 18, 1982
VII. Random Facts
 Ponente: Feliciano, J.
 Adelberto Bundoc; the son, and the person who shot Jennifer with
an air rifle
o Victor and Clara Bundoc; natural parents
o Sabas and Felisa Rapisura; adopted’s parents
 Jennifer Tamargo; kid who got shot and died because of the air
rifle
o Macario Tamargo; the adopted’s father
o Celso and Aurelia Tamargo; natural parents
 Air rifle; colloquially referred as the pellet gun large (hehe)
PETITIONER: Macario, Celso, and Aurelia Tamargo 2
RESPONDENT: Court of Appeals