Lahom vs Sibulo

LAHOM VS SIBULO G.R. No. 143989 July 14, 2003 FACTS:  A childless couple couple adopted adopted the wife's wife's ephew ad !"ou#ht !"ou#ht hi$ up as thei" ow. ow. % 19&2, 19&2, the t"ial cou"t #"ated #"ated the petitio fo" adoptio, ad o"de"ed the i(il Re#ist"a" to cha#e the a$e Jose )el(i *i!ulo to Jose )el(i +aho$. )"s. +aho$ co$$eced a petitio to "escid the dec"ee of adoptio, i which she a(e""ed, that, despite the he" pleas ad that of he" hus!ad, thei" adopted so "efused to use thei" su"a$e +aho$ ad cotiue to use *i!ulo i all his deali# ad acti(ities. "io" to the istitutio of the case, i 1998, RA No. 8--2 wet ito effect. he ew statute deleted f"o$ the law the "i#ht of adopte"s to "escid a dec"ee of adoptio /*ectio 19 of A"ticle %. hese tu" of e(ets "e(eali# Jose's callous idiffe"ece, i#"atitude ad lac of ca"e ad coce" p"o$pted +aho$ to file a petitio i ou"t i ece$!e" 1999 to "escid the dec"ee of adoptio p"e(iously issued way !ac o )ay -, 19&2. he +aho$ filed said petitio the"e was al"eady a ew law o adoptio, specifically R.A. 8--2 also ow as the o$estic Adoptio Act passed o )a"ch 22,1998, whe"ei it was p"o(ided that5 6Adoptio, !ei# i the ite"est of the child, shall ot !e su!7ect to "escissio !y the adopte"/s. owe(e" the adopte"/s $ay disihe"it the adoptee fo" causes p"o(ided i A"ticle 919 of the i(il ode6 /*ectio 19. ISSUE: hethe" o" ot the su!7ect adoptio still !e "e(oed o" "escided !y a adopte" afte" the effecti(ity of R.A. No. 8--2, ad if i the affi"$ati(e, whethe" o" ot the adopte"s actio p"esc"i!ed. RULING: Ju"isdictio of the cou"t is dete"$ied !y the statute i fo"ce at the ti$e of the co$$ece$et of the actio. he cot"o(e"sy should !e "esol(ed i the li#ht of the law #o(e"i# at the ti$e the petitio was filed. % this case, it was $oths afte" the effecti(ity of RA 8--2 that +aho$ filed a actio to "e(oe the dec"ee of adoptio #"ated i 19&2. :y the the ew law had al"eady a!"o#ated ad "epealed the "i#ht of the adopte" ude" the i(il ode ad the fa$ily ode to "escid a dec"ee of adoptio. *o the "escissio of the adoptio dec"ee, ha(i# !ee iitiated !y +aho$ afte" RA 8--2 had co$e ito fo"ce, could o lo#e" !e pu"sued. :esides, e(e !efo"e the passa#e of RA8--2, a actio to set aside the adoptio is su!7ect to the fi(e yea" !a"  "ule ude" Rule 100 of the Rules of ou"t ad that the adopte" would lose the "i#ht to "e(oe the adoptio dec"ee afte" the lapse of that pe"iod. he e;e"cise of the "i#ht withi a p"esc"ipti(e pe"iod is a coditio that could ot fulfill the "ea$ily ou"t i A.). No. 99110& *. ? the $atte" of o cause of actio, the test o the sufficiecy of the facts alle#ed i the co$plait, is whethe" o" ot, ad$itti# the facts alle#ed, the ou"t could "ede" a (alid 7ud#$et i acco"dace with the p"aye" of said co$plait /e Jesus, et al. (s. :ela"$io, et al., 9- hil. 3B-.  Ad$ittedly, *ectio 19, A"ticle % of R.A. No. 8--2 deleted the "i#ht of a adopte" to "escid a adoptio ea"lie" #"ated ude" the >a$ily ode. ofo"$a!ly, o the face of the p etitio, ideed the"e is lac of cause of actio. etitioe" howe(e", isists that he" "i#ht to "escid lo# aca$ily ode of  the hilippies,C14D #a(e i$$ediate statuto"y acowled#$et to the "i#hts of the adopted. % 1989, the Eited Natios iitiated the o(etio of the Ri#hts of the hild. he hilippies, a *tate a"ty to the o(etio, accepted the p"iciple that adoptio was i$p"essed with social ad $o"al "esposi!ility, ad that its ude"lyi# itet was #ea"ed to fa(o" the adopted child. R.A. No. 8--2 secu"ed these "i#hts ad p"i(ile#es fo" the adopted. )ost i$po"tatly, it affi"$ed the le#iti$ate status of the adopted child, ot oly i his e w fa$ily !ut also i the society as well. he ew law withd"ew the "i#ht of a adopte" to "escid the adoptio dec"ee ad #a(e to the adopted child the sole "i#ht to se(e" the le#al ties c"eated !y adoptio. etitioe", howe(e", would isist that R.A. No. 8--2 should ot ad(e"sely affect he" "i#ht to aul the adoptio dec"ee, o" dep"i(e the t"ial cou"t of its 7u"isdictio to hea" the case, !oth !ei# (ested ude" the i(il ode ad the >a$ily ode, the laws the i fo"ce. he cocept of (ested "i#ht is a cosee!"ua"y 1988 whe the hild ad Iouth elfa"e ode /"esidetial ec"ee No. B03 allowed a adoptio to !e sou#ht !y eit*er  spouse o" ot* of the$. Afte" the t"ial cou"t had "ede"ed its decisio ad while the case was still pedi# o appeal, the >a$ily ode of the hilippies /@;ecuti(e ?"de" No. 209, 'dti') oi't doptio' y t*e *us'd 'd -ife, too effect. etitioe" Repu!lic a"#ued that the case should !e dis$issed fo" ha(i# !ee filed !y )"s. :o!iles aloe ad without !ei# 7oied !y the hus!ad. he ou"t cocluded that the urisdi+tio' of t*e +ourt is deteri'ed y t*e sttute i' for+e at the time of the commencement of the action . he petitio' to dopt Jso', *vi') ee' filed -it* t*e +ourt t t*e tie -*e' 2.!. No. 345 -s still i' effe+t,  the "i#ht of )"s. :o!iles to file the petitio, without !ei# 7oied !y he" hus!ad, acco"di# to the ou"t had !eco$e (ested. % Repu&ic $s. 'ier ")*+  spouses laude ad Ju$"us )ille", !oth alies, sou#ht to adopt )ichael )adaya#. ? 29 July 1988, the couple filed a petitio to fo"$ali=e )ichaels adoptio ha(i# the"etofo"e !ee tae ito thei" ca"e. At the ti$e the actio was co$$eced, .. No. B03 allowed alies to adopt. Afte" the dec"ee of adoptio ad while o appeal !efo"e the ou"t of Appeals, the >a$ily ode was eacted ito law o 08 Au#ust 1988 dis