Nena Bagcat‑Gullas v. Joselito F. Gullas

Summary

Nena Bagcat-Gullas and husband Jose sought to adopt minor Jo Anne Maria Ariraya, whose mother had abandoned her. The RTC initially granted the adoption after proper proceedings, but Jose's legitimate children later challenged the decree, claiming they were indispensable parties who should have been served summons. The RTC vacated its decision, ruling that the children's consent was required under R.A. 8552 and that failure to implead them rendered the judgment void. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the children's Affidavit of Consent was not genuine and that void judgments are exceptions to the immutability doctrine. The Supreme Court denied review, confirming that legitimate children of adopters over 10 years old are indispensable parties requiring personal service of summons, and that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by the immutability principle. The case highlights strict procedural requirements in adoption proceedings and the recent shift to administrative adoption under R.A. 11642.