G.R. No. L-5627 February 27, 1953
In the Matter of the Adoption of the Minor LYDIA DURAN. NORBERTO L. DAYRIT and another, petitioners, vs. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ETC., and others, respondents.

FACTS

In Special Proceeding No. 747 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, spouses Norberto L. Dayrit and Flora Regner Dayrit filed a petition for the adoption of Lydia Duran, then five years old. They attached to the petition the written and sworn consent of the child’s natural mother, Lutgarda Duran. The corresponding notice was issued and published in “La Prensa,” a newspaper of general circulation in Cebu. After a hearing, Judge Edmundo S. Piccio, in his order dated January 27, 1951, granted the adoption of Lydia Duran by the Dayrit spouses, with the right to bear the petitioners’ surname and inherit from them according to law. The spouses had no descendants and had ample resources to support and educate their adoptive daughter.
On January 3, 1952, or 24 days less than a year later, Francisco L. Dayrit and Lutgarda Duran filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the adoptive parents had filed the adoption petition without the knowledge and consent of the child’s natural father. They contended that, as the natural father, his consent was essential for the adoption. Vicente Jayme, as amicus curiae, opposed the motion. On February 4, 1952, Judge Piccio revoked his adoption order of January 27, 1951, and ordered the case to be heard on its merits. The amicus curiae moved for reconsideration of the reinstatement order, which was denied on March 20, 1952.
Consequently, on April 4, 1952, the petitioners filed with the Supreme Court this petition for certiorari with injunction, praying for a preliminary writ of injunction to prohibit the Judge from further proceeding with the case and, after a hearing, to declare null and void the order of February 4, 1952, revoking the adoption decree. The Supreme Court issued the preliminary prohibitory injunction on May 12, 1952.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge had the authority or jurisdiction to revoke on February 4, 1952, the adoption decree dated January 27, 1951, one year and eight days after its promulgation.

RULING

No, the respondent Judge had no jurisdiction to revoke the decree. The Supreme Court ruled that the order of revocation dated February 4, 1952, is null and void, and made the preliminary prohibitory injunction permanent, with costs against Francisco L. Dayrit.
The Court held that under Section 3 of Rule 38, a motion to set aside a judgment or order must be filed within sixty days after the aggrieved party learns of the judgment or order, and not more than six months after such judgment or order was entered. Judge Piccio, exceeding his jurisdiction, revoked the adoption decree on February 4, 1952, when it was already final and executory. For reasons of public policy, judicial controversies must end; thus, decisions become final after the period for appeal has lapsed, and thereafter, they are beyond the control or jurisdiction of the courts.
Furthermore, the contention that Francisco L. Dayrit, as the natural father, was essential to the adoption, is without merit. Section 3 of Rule 100 provides that the written consent to the adoption must be signed by the child (if over fourteen and not incapacitated) and by each of the known living parents (if not insane, hopelessly intemperate, or having abandoned the child), or in their default, by the general guardian or guardian ad litem. Crucially, it states: “but if the child is illegitimate and not acknowledged, the consent of its father shall not be required.”
The Court found that Francisco L. Dayrit had abandoned his daughter. The child’s mother was forced to ask the petitioners for employment to support her daughter. The petitioners took care of the child because the mother’s salary was insufficient, enrolling her in kindergarten and later in a piano school at their expense. During this time, the natural father did nothing for her and only claimed the right to give his consent nearly a year after she had been adopted. Moreover, Francisco L. Dayrit did not legally acknowledge his natural child. According to Article 5 of Act No. 3753 , a natural father who wishes to acknowledge his child must sign and swear to the truth of the contents on the back of the birth certificate. If he does not wish to acknowledge it, “no entry shall be made in the document about his name or any circumstance whereby such person may be identified.” The birth certificate of Lydia Duran (Appendix A) was not signed or sworn to by Francisco L. Dayrit to demonstrate his intention to acknowledge her. Therefore, she was not legally acknowledged by her natural father. The appearance of his name in the column headed “Father — Padre” in the birth certificate is considered as not having been written, as it was done in contravention of the express provision of the law.
Thus, in an adoption proceeding for an illegitimate child, the consent of the natural father is not indispensable when he abandons the child, leaving her to the charity of strangers, and does not acknowledge her in accordance with the prescriptions of Act No. 3753 .