G.R. No. L-19391; September 29, 1964
CECILIO DE LA CRUZ and EUSTAQUIA DEVIS DE LA CRUZ, petitioners-appellants, vs. MANUEL JESUS DE LA CRUZ, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

The spouses Cecilio de la Cruz and Eustaquia Devis de la Cruz legally adopted the minor Manuel J. Aquino (now Manuel Jesus de la Cruz) through a final judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Ilocos Sur on August 16, 1954. Seven years later, in 1961, the adoptive parents filed a petition in the CFI of Pangasinan (their new place of residence) to revoke the adoption under Article 348 of the Civil Code. They alleged that the adopted child had repudiated the adoption through open defiance, animosity, and disobedience, and had abandoned their home for over three years to live with his natural mother in Ilocos Sur.
The adopted minor, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the petition on several grounds, including improper venue, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and his person, and failure to state a cause of action. The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that since the original adoption proceedings were conducted in the CFI of Ilocos Sur, that court’s records were presumably still open for a revocation petition. It implied that it could not interfere with the judgment of a coordinate court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan correctly dismissed the petition for revocation of adoption on grounds of improper venue and lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case. It held that a petition for revocation of adoption is a new and independent proceeding, separate and distinct from the original adoption case. The original adoption proceeding terminates upon the finality of the decree. A revocation petition is based on supervening facts occurring after the adoption and seeks to sever the established relationship, not to challenge the validity of the original decree.
The Rules of Court specify the venue for adoption proceedings (Rule 99) but are silent for revocation proceedings (Rule 100). Applying Rule 99 suppletorily, the proper venue for a revocation petition is the place of residence of the petitioner. Since the adoptive parents were residents of Pangasinan at the time of filing, venue was properly laid in the CFI of Pangasinan. The doctrine against interference with judgments of coordinate courts was inapplicable, as the Pangasinan court was not being asked to enjoin or restrain the Ilocos Sur decree but to revoke it based on subsequent grounds. The Court also noted that jurisdiction over the person of the minor could be acquired through the appointment of a guardian ad litem, a matter for the trial court upon remand.