EN
BANC
ANTONIO
RAGUDO
AND
EUGENIA PAREDES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
G.
R.
No. L-16642
April
18, 1962
-versus-
EMELITA R. PASNO,
REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER,
ENRIQUE R. PASNO
AS HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM,
Defendant-Appellee.
D E C I S I
O N
BENGZON,
C.J.:
Appeal from an Order
dismissing
plaintiffs' Complaint.
In the Quezon Court
of First Instance, the Spouses Antonio Ragudo and Eugenia Paderes filed
this Complaint on October 12, 1959, to annul the Order of the Justice
of
the Peace of Tayabas, same province, declaring Emelita R. Pasno their
adopted
child, which Order dated July 31, 1959, was already final. The spouses
alleged substantially that they had been induced by Emelita's parents
to
believe that the adoption proceeding in the Justice of the Peace Court,
"was merely for the purpose of transferring to 8-year old Emelita some
guerilla educational benefits available to Antonio Ragudo." Plaintiffs
further alleged that the adoption had been secured "thru fraud and
misrepresentation
used by defendant Enrique Pasno [father of Emelita] upon the
plaintiffs,
as the latter never intended to adopt" Emelita "as their child."
Instead of answering,
the defendants moved for dismissal of the complaint, arguing that as
the
justice of the peace court has concurrent jurisdiction with the courts
of first instance to take cognizance of adoption cases, the latter has
no jurisdiction to interfere or annul the order issued in said adoption
proceeding.
Upholding defendants'
contention, the judge dismissed the case. Hence this appeal.
There is no question
that a Justice of the Peace Court has jurisdiction over adoption cases.
[Republic Acts 643 and 644]. Courts of First Instance also have
jurisdiction
over the same.
But this is not an
adoption case. This is a civil action to annul an order of a Justice of
the Peace Court, allegedly obtained thru fraud. It is based on Sec. 43
of Act 190.[1]
Of such action, Justice of the Peace Courts cannot take cognizance. And
it falls within the general jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance.
It is argued for the
appellees that under Art. 348 of the New Civil Code, fraud is not one
of
the grounds for revocation of an adoption. The appellants reply, quite
correctly, that those grounds refer only to an adoption validly
decreed,
not to an adoption void from the beginning because tainted with fraud.
Anyway, this is an argument that should be submitted when the case is
considered
on the merits.
The appealed Order
is reversed and the case is hereby remanded for further proceedings.
Padilla,
Bautista
Angelo,
Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ.,
concur.
_______________________
Endnote:[1]
Garchitorena vs. Sotelo, 74 Phil. 25; Quion vs. Claridad, 74 Phil. 100. |