G.R. Nos. 168992-93; May 21, 2009
IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P. LIM and IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHAEL JUDE P. LIM, MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner.

FACTS

Petitioner Monina P. Lim and her first husband, Primo Lim, were childless. They simulated the births of two children, Michelle and Michael Jude, who were entrusted to them as infants. The couple raised the children as their own. After Primo’s death, Monina remarried Angel Olario, an American citizen. Seeking to rectify the simulated births under the amnesty provision of Republic Act No. 8552 (the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998), Monina filed separate petitions to adopt Michelle and Michael Jude. At the time of filing, Michelle was 25 and married, while Michael Jude was 18 years and 7 months old. All necessary consents were secured, including from the adoptees and Monina’s new husband. The Department of Social Welfare and Development certified the children as abandoned.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petitions without prejudice. It ruled that since Monina had remarried, she was mandated to file the petition jointly with her new husband under Section 7(c) of RA 8552 and Article 185 of the Family Code. The trial court rejected Monina’s arguments that her husband’s consent sufficed or that joint adoption was unnecessary as the adoptees were emancipated.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner, who has remarried, can singly adopt the children.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. The law is explicit and mandatory. Section 7(c) of RA 8552 states that if the petitioner is legally married, the husband and wife shall jointly adopt. The Court found no applicable exception, as the spouse is neither separated de facto or de jure nor psychologically incapacitated. The requirement for joint filing is a substantive condition, not merely a procedural formality aimed solely at establishing joint parental authority. The fact that the adoptees were emancipated (Michelle by marriage and Michael Jude by age) does not relax this mandatory rule. Adoption creates a permanent legal relationship with far-reaching civil effects, including succession rights, which necessitates strict compliance with the statutory requirement of joint petition by married couples. The Court applied the principle of dura lex sed lex (the law is harsh, but it is the law), emphasizing that the State’s interest in ensuring the stability of adoptive families through this joint requirement prevails. The proper remedy for petitioner is to re-file the petitions jointly with her current spouse.