179 Tamargo v CA time in the U.S. and had no physical custody over Adelberto) would be unfair.

Such a
TOPIC: Persons liable; Parents
CASE NO.: G.R. No. 85044 | June 3, 1992 | FELICIANO, J | [J. Masilungan]
CASE NAME: MACARIO TAMARGO; CELSO TAMARGO; AURELIA TAMARGO, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. ARISTON L. RUBIO, RTC Judge, Branch
20, Vigan, IIocos Sur; VICTOR BUNDOC; CLARA BUNDOC
NATURE: PETITION for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
RELEVANT FACTS
Respondent is the natural parent of minor Adelberto Bundoc, who in October 1982
shot and killed the daughter of the petitioners named Jennifer Tamargo. Jennifer’s
natural parents filed civil complaints for damages with the RTC against Bundoc’s
natural parents.
Prior to the incident, in December 1981, spouses Rapisura filed a special petition to
adopt Adelberto, although the custody is still with his natural parent. The petition
was granted in November 1982.
result would be inconsistent with the policy basis underlying the doctrine of vicarious
liability. No presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adopting parents
could have arisen since Adelberto was not in fact subject to their control at the time
the tort was committed.
Under the Civil Code, the basis of parental liability for the tort of a minor child is the
relationship existing between the parents and the minor child living with them and
over whom, the law presumes, the parents exercise supervision and control. The
father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Article 221 of the Family Code states, “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 defences provided by law.”
DISPOSITIVE

Adelberto’s parents posited that their parental authority transferred to the adopting
parents from the moment the petition for adoption was decreed, hence, Spouses
Rapisura are indispensable parties to the action.
Spouses Tamargo contended that since Adelberto was then living with his natural
parents, parental authority had not ceased by mere filing and granting of the petition
for adoption. Trial court dismissed the Spouses Tamargo’s petition.
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 CA-
G.R. No. SP15016 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 proceedings consistent with this Decision. Costs against respondent
Bundoc spouses. This Decision is immediately executory. SO ORDERED.

ISSUE/RATIO DECIDENDI

Are Spouses Rapisura the indispensable parties to actions committed by

Adelberto? NO.

Parental authority had not been retroactively transferred to and vested in the
adopting parents, at the time the shooting happened. Parental authority was still
lodged with the natural parents, hence, they are the indispensable parties to the
suit for damages.

Retroactive affect may be essential if it permits accrual of some benefit in favor of

the adopted child. To hold that parental authority had been retroactively lodged in
Spouses Rapisura so as to burden them with liability for a tortious act that they could
not have foreseen and which they could not have prevented (since they were at the