G.R. No. 92542 October 15, 1991
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Hon. Zenaida Elepano, Presiding Judge of RTC Kalookan, Branch 128 and Corazon Santos Punsalan, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Corazon Santos Punsalan filed a verified petition for adoption of her two nieces. Shortly after filing, she moved to take her deposition, citing an urgent work assignment abroad with the United Nations in Geneva that would prevent her from testifying at future hearings. The respondent judge granted the motion, ordering notice to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and set the deposition. The OSG, despite notice, did not appear at the deposition-taking but later filed an opposition, arguing that under Rule 24, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, depositions require leave of court only after jurisdiction over the defendant is obtained. The OSG contended that since the jurisdictional publication requirement for the adoption petition had not yet been complied with at the time, the court lacked jurisdiction to authorize the deposition. The trial judge denied the opposition.
Subsequently, the notice of hearing was duly published. During the hearings on the merits, the petitioner presented evidence, including the deposition, and the OSG failed to appear despite notice. The trial court granted the adoption decree. The OSG’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this certiorari petition, reiterating its argument that the deposition was improperly taken prior to compliance with the publication requirement.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the taking of the petitioner’s deposition before the publication of the notice of hearing for the adoption petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the nature of adoption proceedings and the purpose of depositions. The OSG’s reliance on Rule 24, Section 1 is misplaced. That rule generally governs actions in personam, where jurisdiction over the defendant is essential. An adoption case, however, is an action in rem, concerning the status of the persons involved. Jurisdiction is based on the court’s power over the res (the status of adoption), secured through publication, not over a particular defendant.
The requirement of publication is necessary for the validity of the final adoption decree to bind all interested parties. It is not, however, a prerequisite for the mere taking of a deposition, which is a pre-trial discovery procedure. A deposition does not determine substantive rights; it merely preserves testimony, which may later be offered and objected to during trial. Allowing the deposition due to the petitioner’s compelling unavailability, with notice to the OSG, was a reasonable exercise of discretion that did not prejudice any party, especially since the OSG subsequently chose not to participate in any hearing. The ruling aligns with the paramount policy of promoting the child’s welfare in adoption cases.