Name: Kim Angeli P.

Sobrepena

Title: Castro v. Gregorio, GR 188801, October 15, 2014

Topic: Rule 98

FACTS: Atty. Jose Castro filed a petition for adoption of Jed Gregorio and Regina
Gregorio. Jose is the estranged husband of Rosario Mata Castro and the father of Joanne
Castro. Rosario alleged that their marriage have been troubled since their first child died
only after nine days after succumbing to congenital heart disease. Rosario left Jose
because of incompatibilities between them. Rosario anf Jose briefly reconciled in 1969
and gave birth to Joanne a year later. Afterwards, they separated permanently because
Rosario alleged that Jose had homosexual tendencies.

On 2000, Jose filed a petition for adoption alleging that Jed and Regina were his
illegitimate children with Lilibeth Gregorio whom Rosario alleged was his housekeeper.

In a Home Study Report, it was said that Rosario and Jose did not have any child
together.

On October 2000, the trial court approved the adoption having ruled that no opposition
had been received by the court.

On 2006, Rosario, through her lawyer, filed a complaint for disbarment against Jose with
IBP alleging that Jose had been remiss in providing support for their daughter, Joanne,
for the part 36 years. She alleged that while she single-handedly raised and provided
financial support to Joanne, Jose had been showering gifts to his driver and alleged lover,
Larry, and even went to the extent of adopting Larry’s two children without her and
Joanne’s knowledge and consent.

Jose denied the allegations stating that he has always offered to help but it was often
declined. He also alleged that he adopted Jed and Regina because they are his illegitimate
children. He alleged that his income had been diminished because several properties had
to be sold to pay for medical treatments when he suffered a stroke in 1998 which left him
paralyzed.

Rosario alleged that they learned of the adoption sometimei 2005, and that the affidavit
of consent filed was fraudulent. She also alleged the discrepancies of the birth
certificates. It was further alleged that Jed and Regina were not Jose’s illegitimate
children but the legitimate children of Lilibeth and Larry who were married at the time of
their birth.

CA – ruled that there is no explicit provision in the rules that the spouse and legitimate
child of the adopter should be personally notified of the hearing. It also stated that its
hands were bound by the trial court decision that had already attained finality and
immutability. It further stated that the alleged fraud was perpetreated during the trial, and
could not be classified as extrinsic fraud, which is required in an action for annulment of
judgment.

ISSUE/S: 1) Whether or not the trial court lacked jurisdiction

2) whether or not there is an existence of extrinsic fraud

RULING: 1. Yes, the trial court did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the proceedings.
RA 8552 requires that the adoption by the father of a child born out of wedlock obtain
not only the consent of his wife but also the consent of his legitimate children. Jose did
not validly obtain Rosario’s consent. Since her consent was not obtained, Jose was not
eligible to adopt. The law also requires the written consent of the adopter’s children if
they are 10 years old or older. Personal service of summons should have been effected on
the spouse and all legitimate children to ensure that their substantive rights are protected.

2. When fraud is employed by a party precisely to prevent the participation of any other
interested party, as in this case, then the fraud is extrinsic, regardless of whether the fraud
was committed through the use of forged documents or perjured testimony during the
trial. Jose’s actions prevented Rosario and Joanne from having a reasonable opportunity
to contest the adoption. There can be no other conclusion than that because of Jose’s acts,
the trial court granted a decree of adoption under fraudulent circumstances.