G.R. No. 264146 , August 07, 2023
Nena Bagcat-Gullas, Petitioner, vs. Joselito F. Gullas, Joie Marie F. Gullas Yu, and John Vincent F. Gullas, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nena Bagcat-Gullas and her husband Jose R. Gullas filed a Petition for Adoption and Correction of Entries for minor Jo Anne Maria Ariraya. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition. Subsequently, the respondents, who are the legitimate children of Jose, filed an Entry of Appearance. The RTC initially denied this, stating they were not parties of record, and issued a Certificate of Finality for its Decision. The respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing they were indispensable parties whose consent was necessary for the adoption. They also questioned the genuineness of an Affidavit of Consent they purportedly signed. The RTC granted the motion, vacated its Decision, set aside the Certificate of Finality, reinstated the case, and ordered summons served on the respondents, ruling the judgment void due to lack of jurisdiction from the failure to serve summons on these indispensable parties. Bagcat-Gullas filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied the petition, affirming the RTC’s ruling that the children of the adopter are indispensable parties under Republic Act No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998), and that the Affidavit of Consent did not appear genuine. The CA held the judgment void and thus not covered by the rule on immutability of judgments. Bagcat-Gullas elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Did the CA err in affirming the ruling of the RTC?
2. Did the CA err when it ruled that the Affidavit of Consent executed by the respondents is not genuine?

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Petition. On the second issue, the Court declined to review the CA’s factual finding on the genuineness of the Affidavit of Consent, as the Court is not a trier of facts and questions of fact are not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition. On the merits of the first issue, the Court held that the legitimate children of the adopter, if ten years of age or over, are indispensable parties whose written consent is necessary under Section 9 of R.A. No. 8552 . Their interest is material as an adoption affects their rights, including their future legitimes. Following its precedent in Castro v. Gregorio, the Court ruled that personal service of summons on such children is necessary to vest the trial court with jurisdiction. The failure to implead and serve summons upon the respondents rendered the RTC’s judgment void. A void judgment never attains finality and is an exception to the principle of immutability of judgments. Therefore, the CA correctly affirmed the RTC’s orders vacating the void judgment and reinstating the case.