G.R. No. L-23828. February 28, 1966.
PAULINA SANTOS and AURORA SANTOS, petitioners, vs. GREGORIA ARANZANSO and DEMETRIA VENTURA, respondents.

FACTS

On June 4, 1949, Simplicio Santos and Juliana Reyes filed a petition to adopt the minors Paulina Santos (17 years old) and Aurora Santos (8 years old). The petition, under oath, alleged that the minors’ parents’ whereabouts were unknown, that the minors had been abandoned by their parents since the war, and that the petitioners had cared for them since infancy. A guardian ad litem, Crisanto de Mesa, was appointed and gave written consent to the adoption. Paulina Santos, being over fourteen, also gave her written consent. After publication and hearing, the Court of First Instance of Manila granted the adoption on August 25, 1949, finding that the parents had long been unheard from despite diligent efforts to locate them, and that the adoption was for the minors’ best interest. No appeal was taken from this decision.
On October 21, 1957, Juliana Reyes died intestate. Simplicio Santos filed a petition for settlement of her estate, stating the surviving heirs were himself (as spouse) and the adopted children, Paulina and Aurora Santos. Gregoria Aranzanso, alleging to be a first cousin of the deceased, opposed the appointment of Simplicio Santos as administrator, claiming his marriage to Juliana was bigamous and the adoption was void ab initio for lack of the natural parents’ written consent. Demetria Ventura, also alleging to be a first cousin and claiming to be the mother of Paulina Santos, joined the opposition. The probate court ruled that the validity of the adoption could not be collaterally attacked in the intestate proceedings. The Court of Appeals reversed this, finding the adoption null and void ab initio due to the absence of the natural parents’ consent, which it deemed a jurisdictional defect open to collateral attack. Paulina and Aurora Santos appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Gregoria Aranzanso and Demetria Ventura could collaterally attack the final decree of adoption in the settlement proceedings on the ground of lack of consent from the natural parents.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the order of the Court of First Instance. The Court held that the adoption decree, having become final and unappealed, was no longer open to a collateral attack. Parental consent is not an absolute jurisdictional requisite under Philippine law (Rule 100, Old Rules of Court) if the parents have abandoned the child, in which case consent by the guardian ad litem suffices. The adoption court’s decision contained an implicit finding of abandonment based on the evidence that the parents had long been unheard from despite diligent searches. A finding of fact by the adoption court, such as abandonment, is conclusive in the absence of fraud, and cannot be relitigated in a collateral proceeding. The validity of an adoption decree can only be assailed in a direct proceeding for its annulment. Therefore, in the intestate proceedings, the adoption must be considered valid, and the respondents’ collateral attack is impermissible.