View full case

DIWATA RAMOS LANDINGIN v. REPUBLIC

FACTS:

Diwata Ramos Landingin, a US citizen, filed a petition for adoption of minors Elaine Dizon Ramos, Elma Dizon Ramos, and Eugene Dizon Ramos. The minors are the natural children of petitioner's brother, Manuel Ramos, and Amelia Ramos. After Manuel's death, the children were left to their paternal grandmother, while Amelia went to Italy and remarried, no longer maintaining communication with her children. The minors have given written consent to the adoption, and the petitioner, a 57-year-old widow with her own children, is financially supporting them. The Office of the Solicitor General deputized the City Prosecutor to appear on its behalf. The Department of Social Welfare and Development recommended the adoption, citing the voluntary consent of the mother and the minors themselves.

The petitioner failed to present a witness and evidence of Amelia Ramos' consent. The court granted the adoption petition, which was later appealed by the OSG on grounds of lack of consent and the petitioner's financial capacity. The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, highlighting the absence of voluntary consent and lack of authentication of the affidavit of consent from the petitioner's children. The CA also mentioned the petitioner's financial instability. The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it. Consequently, she filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that important facts were overlooked and misapplied, and asserting her financial capability. The issues raised in the pleadings revolve around the lack of consent, sufficiency of the affidavit of consent, and petitioner's financial capability.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the mother, Amelia Ramos, abandoned her children and severed her mother-child relationship with them.

  2. Whether the best interest of the children is served by allowing the adoption.

  3. Whether the evidence submitted by the petitioner, including Pagbilao's Report and the Joint Affidavit of Consent, should be considered by the court.

  4. Whether the written consent of the legitimate children of the petitioner complied with the requirements of Section 2 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

RULING:

  1. The Court found that Amelia Ramos did not intend to permanently sever her mother-child relationship with her children. Although she left for Italy due to financial constraints, she continued to consult with her children for serious personal problems. She also continued to provide financial support, although in minimal amounts compared to what her affluent in-laws provided. Therefore, the Court ruled that she did not emotionally abandon her children.

  2. The Court emphasized that the best interest of the child takes precedence in adoption. It stated that the adoption would sever all legal ties between Amelia Ramos and her children and would be vested in the adopter. In order to deprive a person of parental authority over their children, more evidence is required to prove emotional abandonment and the absence of the need for the parent's guidance and counsel. Therefore, the Court ruled that the best interest of the children would not be served by allowing the adoption.

  3. The Court held that the petitioner failed to offer Pagbilao's Report and the Joint Affidavit of Consent in evidence. These documents were notarized in Guam, USA and did not comply with Section 2 of Act No. 2103, which provides for the acknowledgment and authentication of instruments or documents in a foreign country. Therefore, these documents were deemed as mere scraps of paper and were not given evidentiary weight by the court.

  4. The Court held that the written consent of the legitimate children of the petitioner did not comply with the requirements of Section 2 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. As such, the written consent is inadmissible in evidence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Adoption statutes are designed to provide homes, parental care, and education for unfortunate, needy, or orphaned children.

  • Adoption laws hold the interest and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration.

  • Every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote the noble and compassionate objectives of adoption laws.

  • The discretion to approve adoption proceedings should consider the best interests of the child and the natural rights of the parents over the child.

  • The written consent of the biological parents is required for the validity of a decree of adoption.

  • Abandonment by a parent to justify adoption without their consent requires a settled purpose to forego all parental duties.

  • Merely permitting the child to remain in the care of others is not considered abandonment.

  • The best interest of the child takes precedence in adoption.

  • Financial consideration should not be the paramount consideration when deciding whether to deprive a person of parental authority over their children.

  • The court can only consider evidence that has been formally offered and admitted for the purpose or purposes specified.

  • Documents notarized in a foreign country must comply with the requirements stated in the country's law in order to be given evidentiary weight in court.

  • An instrument or document acknowledged and authenticated in a foreign country is considered authentic if the acknowledgment and authentication are made in accordance with the requirements of Section 2 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

  • In order for a written consent to be admissible in evidence, it must comply with the requirements set forth in Section 2 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

  • The financial capacity of prospective adoptive parents should be evaluated and considered in adoption proceedings, as the adopter should be in a position to support the adopted child(ren) in keeping with the means of the family.

  • Adoption only creates a legal relation between the adopter and the adopted child(ren), and it is the adopter's personal ability to support the adoptee(s) that is relevant in determining the best interest of the child(ren) in adoption proceedings.