GR L 16642; (April, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16642; April 18, 1962
ANTONIO RAGUDO and EUGENIA PAREDES, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. EMELITA R. PASNO, represented by her Father, ENRIQUE R. PASNO as her guardian ad-litem, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The spouses Antonio Ragudo and Eugenia Paredes filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Quezon on October 12, 1959. They sought to annul a final order dated July 31, 1959, issued by the Justice of the Peace Court of Tayabas, which declared Emelita R. Pasno as their legally adopted child. The plaintiffs alleged that they were induced by Emelita’s parents to consent to the adoption proceeding under the false pretense that it was merely a procedural step to transfer certain guerrilla educational benefits from Mr. Ragudo to the 8-year-old Emelita. They asserted that they never intended to adopt the child and that the adoption decree was secured through fraud and misrepresentation perpetrated by the child’s father, Enrique Pasno.
Instead of filing an answer, the defendants moved for the dismissal of the complaint. They contended that since the justice of the peace court possessed concurrent jurisdiction with courts of first instance over adoption cases, the Court of First Instance lacked the authority to interfere with or annul the final order issued by the inferior court. The trial judge sustained this argument and dismissed the case, prompting the plaintiffs to elevate the matter on appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to entertain an independent civil action to annul a final adoption decree issued by a justice of the peace court on the ground of fraud.
RULING
Yes, the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that the present action is not an adoption case per se, but a distinct civil action to annul a judicial order allegedly procured through fraud, pursuant to Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ). While justice of the peace courts and courts of first instance have concurrent original jurisdiction over adoption proceedings, an action for annulment of judgment based on fraud falls outside the jurisdictional competence of justice of the peace courts. Such an action is within the general jurisdiction of courts of first instance.
The Court rejected the appellees’ argument that fraud is not a ground for revocation under Article 348 of the New Civil Code, noting that this provision applies to validly decreed adoptations. The appellants’ allegation of fraud, if proven, would render the adoption void ab initio, a matter distinct from revocation. This substantive defense, however, pertains to the merits of the case and should be ventilated during a full trial. Consequently, the order of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.