Dear PAO,
My husband and I filed a petition for adoption in favor of a child whom we have treated as our real child since birth. The court granted our petition. Unfortunately, after the decision became final, my husband’s children from his first marriage filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the decision was void for lack of jurisdiction because they were not served summons. We filed our opposition, but it was denied. Isn’t it right that a decision that has become final can no longer be modified, even if modification is meant to correct an error?
Winnie
Dear Winnie,
The doctrine of immutability of judgments bars the courts from modifying decisions that have already attained finality, even if the purpose of the modification is meant to correct errors of law or facts. This rule is, however, not without an exception. The following, which usually apply to serve substantial justice, are the recognized exceptions: (1) correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. (Gadrinab v. Salamanca, GR 194560, June 11, 2014, Ponente: Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen).
Prior to the effectivity of our new law on adoption, Republic Act (RA) 11642, otherwise known as Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act, adoption was governed by Republic Act 8552. Section 9 (c) thereof requires the written consent of legitimate/adopted children of the adopter in order for adoption to prosper, it provides:
“Section 9. Whose Consent is Necessary to the Adoption. – After being properly counseled and informed of his/her right to give or withhold his/her approval of the adoption, the written consent of the following to the adoption is hereby required: x x x
“(c) The legitimate and adopted sons/daughters, ten (10) years of age or over, of the adopter(s) and adoptee, if any;”
Relatedly, it must be noted that the children of the adopter, as mentioned above, are considered indispensable parties in an adoption proceeding. As a rule, the absence of indispensable parties renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. A decision that is null and void for want of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court is not a decision contemplated by law, and thus, can never attain finality. This finds support in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nena Bagcat-Gullas v. Joselito Gullas, et al., GR 264146, Aug. 7, 2023, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, where the Court explained:
“In this regard, the Court in Castro v. Gregorio, ruled: the consent of the adopter’s other children is necessary as it ensures harmony among the prospective siblings. It also sufficiently puts the other children on notice that they will have to share their parent’s love and care, as well as their future legitime, with another person.
“The respondent’s interest is material as an adoption decree not only affects the rights of the adoptee vis-Ã -vis the adopter, but also the rights of the other children of the adopter, Jose in this case. Further, it is not enough to rely on constructive notice. The respondents, as children of Jose, should have been personally served summons by the trial court. Without impleading the respondents, and absent service of summons upon them, the judgment rendered by the RTC is void.
“… the rule on immutability of judgments does not apply because the judgment is void. The respondents, being the legitimate children of one of the adopters, Jose, are without a doubt, indispensable parties. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, as such the court has no authority to act not only as to the absent party but also as to those present.”
Guided by the foregoing, it is clear that the doctrine on immutability of judgment does not apply to your case because the children of your husband from his first marriage were not served summons. The decision rendered in your adoption case, in the absence of these children, who are considered indispensable parties, is void. Hence, it may not attain finality. While the doctrine of immutability of judgments bars courts from modifying decisions that have attained finality, the decision contemplated by law is one which is valid, and not void.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]
