G.R. No. 78339 September 29, 1989
WENCESLAO D. MONSERRATE, IGNACIO D. MONSERRATE, JOSE D. MONSERRATE and HEIRS OF MARIA MONSERRATE VDA. DE CAILES, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ERVIN O. POMPA and HON. CARLOS RUSTIA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 28 Santa Cruz, Laguna, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the heirs of Nieves Suiza, sought the annulment of the adoption decree granted in favor of private respondent Ervin O. Pompa. They filed a complaint alleging the adoption proceedings were null and void. The Court of First Instance of Laguna had granted the adoption petition filed by Nieves Suiza in 1971. The order setting the hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation. After ex parte proceedings where Suiza and Pompa testified, the court issued the adoption decree. Suiza died intestate in 1982. Petitioners later challenged the adoption, claiming lack of jurisdiction due to the non-notification of the Solicitor General, non-compliance with statutory requirements, and extrinsic fraud, alleging Suiza was hospitalized and could not have attended the 1971 hearing.

ISSUE

The core issues were whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the adoption case despite the Solicitor General’s non-notification, whether the proceedings were vitiated by non-compliance with statutory requirements, and whether extrinsic fraud nullified the decree.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Court of Appeals’ decision which sustained the validity of the adoption. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the publication of the order setting the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation, as required by the Rules of Court, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. The involvement of the Solicitor General is not a jurisdictional requirement but a procedural safeguard; its absence does not divest the court of jurisdiction, especially where, as here, the order was duly published and no opposition was filed. Regarding statutory compliance, the Court found that the essential requirements of the law were met. The proceedings were conducted, evidence was received, and the decree was issued based on the evidence presented. The claim of extrinsic fraud was rejected. Petitioners presented medical records to prove Suiza could not have attended the hearing, but the Court of Appeals found these documents infirm, as evidence suggested they pertained to a different person and may have been falsified. Allegations of fraud, being criminal in nature, require proof of a clear and convincing character, which petitioners failed to provide. Thus, the adoption, appearing regular and valid on its face, was upheld.