REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, v.

COURT OF APPEALS and ZENAIDA

C. BOBILES
G.R. No. 92326, 24 January 1992, SECOND DIVISION (REGALADO, J.)

Zenaida Corteza Bobiles filed on her own a petition to adopt Jason Condat,
then six (6) years old and who had been living with her family since he was
four (4) months old, before the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City. The
petition was set for hearing and was duly published and copies thereof were
sent to important authorities, including Salvador Condat, father of the child
and the social worker assigned to the court. A copy of said order was posted
on the bulletin board of the court and in the other places it had required for
that purpose. Nobody appeared to oppose the petition. Thereafter, the
petition for adoption was granted but the same was appealed by herein
petitioner to the CA.

The republic contests the validity of the resolution for adoption on the
ground that the family code requires that spouses should jointly adopt a
child. However, Bobiles argues that the family code should not be
retroactively applied since at the time when she filed a petition for adoption,
the governing law is P.D. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Act in which
adoption of either spouses is permitted. Moreover, Bobiles presents evidence
that although her husband was not a party to the adoption, the latter
approved and consented her initiative of adopting Jason Condat.

ISSUE: Should the provisions of the Family Code concerning

adoption law be applied retroactively against the petition for
adoption filed before the effectivity of the said code?

RULING: No. This is because the adoption case had already become a
vested right which cannot be affected by laws enacted after the petition was
filed. Adoption cases should be ruled out considering the best interests of the
adoptee which is nonetheless superior over stringent application of
procedural rules.

As regards the republics argument that even the family code should not
apply retroactively, the CA should have modified the RTCs resolution by
granting the adoption in favor of the wife only because her husband was not
a petitioner to the same case. The SC, however, said that this view is
untenable. Although the husband was not named as one of the petitioners,
his affidavit of consent was attached to the petition signifying his interest in
adopting Jason. Thus, this just implies that the husband actually joined his
wife in adopting the child.