Philippine laws on adoption
court), and others as proof of good moral character, good health,
The Philippines has two laws on adoption, namely, [1]
Republic Act 8552 Domestic Adoption Act of 1998; and [2]
Republic Act 8043 Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995.
(Portions of both laws have been amended by RA 9523 as I will
discuss below.)
RA 8552 amended Articles 183 up to 193 of the Family Code of the
Philippines and is the governing law for Filipino citizens adopting
other Filipinos (whether relatives or strangers) with some
exceptions. Under Article 192 of the FC, the adopting couple may
under certain circumstances ask for judicial rescission of the
adoption. Rescission of adoption is no longer allowed under RA
8552.
RA 8043 on the other hand, governs the adoption of Filipinos by
foreigners, and is implemented by the Inter-Country Adoption
Board. For more information on inter-country adoption, please surf
to the websites of the ICAB and the Filipino Adoptees Network.
Please take note that RA 8552 (and not RA 8043) applies
when a foreigner who is married to a Filipino citizen seeks
to adopt jointly with his/her spouse a relative within the
fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino
spouse.
Please take note also of the difference between adoption
and simulation of birth (an illegal practice resorted to by a
lot of Filipinos). Adoption is the legal process by which a child
becomes the legitimate child of the adopting person/s. Simulation
of birth on the other hand occurs when a childless couple, for
example, comes into possession of a baby or child, given to them
by a midwife, an unwed mother or a relative, and this couple then
applies for a birth certificate, making it appear that the baby or
child is their biological offspring. Under RA 8552, simulation of birth
is a criminal offense punishable by eight years imprisonment and a
fine of fifty thousand pesos.
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
1 |Page
ITR, bank deposit, etc), clearances (barangay, police, NBI, fiscal,
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.
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 since
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
2 |Page
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?
Please take note that 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. However, 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
which have not been expressly repealed by RA 8552 are still
applicable.
What about adoption by a wife and husband (one a former
Filipino citizen and the other a natural-born citizen of
another country)?
This was the issue decided by the Supreme Court in the
case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Toledano G.R. No.
94147 June 8, 1994. Please take note that the case was decided
under the provisions of the Family Code on adoption which have
been superseded by RA 8043 and RA 8552. However, 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
3 |Page
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.
As you can read, 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
4 |Page
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.

However, 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

5 |Page