Extrinsic fraud

This is a case of adoption. The general rule here is that if the adopter is married and has children, the adoption must be filed by the couple jointly and must be with the consent of the adopter’s other children, 10 years old or older, so as to ensure harmony among the prospective siblings. So if the adoption is not jointly filed or there is no consent of the spouse and the adopter’s children, can the adoption made by adopter still be considered legal? These are the questions answered in this case of Henry.

Henry is married to Lilia. Even if their marriage appeared to be in trouble because Henry allegedly had homosexual tendencies and because of their incompatibilities, they still had a child after more than one year of marriage. The child, however, had a congenital disease and lived only for nine days. So, two months after the child’s death, Lilia left Henry.

Seven years after their marriage, however, Lilia and Henry reconciled although they still lived separately. Then one year after their reconciliation during which Henry would visit Lilia, Lilia gave birth to Mina. But eventually, they separated permanently, although they still remained friends.

When Henry was already 70 years old, he filed a Petition for adoption of Gina and Alan in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of another town in the province where he lived. The adoptees were allegedly the children of Erlinda, whom he met and fell in love with in the town where he lived while already living separately from Lilia. He alleged that since he had no child with Lilia, he was not able to fulfill his dreams to parent a child. However, with the presence of his two illegitimate children, Gina and Alan, his dreams are fulfilled and it is his intention to legalize their relationship and surname. He further said that the children have been under his custody for about five years already because their mother Erlinda had died.

In two months’ time, after hearing Henry’s petition, the RTC approved the adoption of Gina and Alan because no opposition has been filed by any person, including the government.

For being remiss in supporting their child Mina while showering gifts on his driver Jojo and adopting Gina and Alan without her and Mina’s knowledge and consent, as well as for blatantly lying to the RTC, Lilia filed a complaint for disbarment against Henry. But while said complaint was still pending, Henry died at 70 years old.

So Lilia and Mina also filed a Petition for Annulment of the Judgment of Adoption of Gina and Alan in the Court of Appeals. They alleged that they learned of said judgment only five years after it was issued; that Lilia’s affidavit of consent filed in Court was fraudulent and that the birth certificates of Gina and Alan have different sets of information regarding the age of Erlinda when she gave birth, and the father of the children wherein it appears that Henry was the father whereas the birth certificate on file with the National Statistics Office (NSO) shows that the father is Jojo. Lilia and Mina likewise alleged that Gina and Alan were not the illegitimate children of Henry, but the legitimate children of Jojo and Erlinda.

The CA, however, denied their petition for failure to show that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to lack of personal notice to them and that there is extrinsic fraud. The CA ruled that the fraudulent affidavit and the fraudulent information in the different sets of birth certificates were perpetrated during the trial and thus could not be considered as extrinsic fraud as required in an action for annulment of judgment. Was the CA correct?

No, said the Supreme Court. It is correct that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties and extrinsic fraud are the only grounds for which a Petition for Annulment of Judgment may be availed of. In this case there is really lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud.

Jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action, which is RA 8552. Said RA requires that the adoption by the father of a child born out of wedlock must be not only with the consent of his wife but also the consent of his legitimate children 10 years or older. So, Henry must file a joint petition for adoption together with Lilia or get her consent to the adoption since the children to be adopted are elevated to the level of legitimate children. This is to insure harmony between the spouses. The written consent of Mina, who is Henry’s legitimate child over 10 years old, is also necessary to insure harmony among the prospective siblings. So Lilia and Mina should have been personally notified of the Petition for Adoption. The constructive notice by publication of the petition as claimed by Henry is not enough. Hence since there is no personal notice to Lilia and Mina, it never validly acquired jurisdiction.

There is also extrinsic fraud in this case. When the fraud is employed by a party precisely to prevent the participation of any other interested party, the fraud is extrinsic regardless of whether the fraud was committed through the use of forged documents or perjured testimony during the trial. In this case, Henry’s actions prevented Lilia and Mina from having a reasonable opportunity to contest the adoption. So the judgment of adoption of Gina and Alan is really null and void. (Castro and Castro vs. Gregorio and Gregorio, GR 188801, Oct. 15, 2014)