Adoption in the Philippines (RA 11642)

Answer Summary

Under current Philippine law, domestic adoption is governed by Republic Act No. 11642 (the Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act), effective 28 January 2022. The law transferred jurisdiction over domestic adoption from the courts to the National Authority for Child Care (NACC), making domestic adoption a purely administrative proceeding. The judicial process under Republic Act No. 8552 (the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998) and Presidential Decree No. 603 has been repealed. The new administrative route is intended to be faster, less adversarial, and child‑centered, while preserving the substantive rights and obligations that flow from the parent‑child relationship created by adoption.

The qualifications for adopters under Section 21 of RA 11642 require a Filipino citizen at least 25 years of age, in full possession of civil capacity, of good moral character, emotionally and psychologically capable, and able to support the child, and generally at least 16 years older than the adoptee (waivable for biological parents or a spouse adopting the other spouse’s child). A foreign national may adopt as a domestic adopter if habitually resident in the Philippines for at least five years, meets the same qualifications, and comes from a country with diplomatic relations with the Philippines that will recognize the adoption. Spouses must jointly adopt, except in limited cases. A child who may be adopted (Section 22) includes any child declared legally available for adoption (with a Certificate Declaring a Child Legally Available for Adoption or CDCLAA), the legitimate child of one spouse by the other, an illegitimate child for the purpose of improving status, a person of legal age who has been consistently treated as the adopter’s child for at least three years, a foster child, and certain relatives.

The controlling Supreme Court decision for the pre‑requisite of a CDCLAA for a surrendered child is Eleazar R. Robiso v. Hon. Marie Grace Javier Ibay, G.R. No. 241893, 3 November 2025, which held that even a child voluntarily surrendered to an individual requires a DSWD certification before an adoption petition may proceed. The indispensable requirement of written consent of the adopter’s legitimate children ten years or older, and the voiding of an adoption decree for lack of such consent, was reaffirmed in Nena Bagcat‑Gullas v. Joselito F. Gullas, G.R. No. 264146, 7 August 2023. The effect of adoption on successional rights under RA 11642 must be read in light of the earlier doctrine in Sayson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 89224‑25, 23 January 1992, which limited the adopted child’s inheritance to the adopter and did not extend to the adopter’s relatives; however, Section 41 of RA 11642 now extends legitimate filiation to the adopter’s parents, legitimate siblings, and legitimate descendants, thus expanding the adoptee’s intestate succession rights beyond the adopter‑adoptee dyad. The use of the adopter’s surname and the issuance of an amended birth certificate are mandated, and the original birth certificate is cancelled and sealed.

Common failure points leading to denial or subsequent nullification include: (1) failure to attach a CDCLAA for a surrendered, abandoned, or neglected child (see Robiso, G.R. No. 241893); (2) failure to obtain the written consent of the adopter’s legitimate or adopted children aged ten or older (see Bagcat‑Gullas, G.R. No. 264146); (3) filing a single petition when a married couple is required to adopt jointly (see In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim / Michael Jude P. Lim, G.R. Nos. 168992‑93, 21 May 2009); and (4) failure to secure the biological parent’s written consent when no abandonment is proven (see Diwata Ramos Landingin v. Republic, G.R. No. 164948, 27 June 2006). In all such cases, the adoption could not proceed or was declared void because the jurisdictional and substantive requirements were not satisfied.

Based on comprehensive database and web research, the most recent Supreme Court rulings that directly address domestic adoption are Robiso (2025) and Bagcat‑Gullas (2023). No rulings from 2024‑2026 were found that alter the substantive framework of RA 11642.

Section I — Issue Overview

1. Who may adopt and who may be adopted under Republic Act No. 11642? The qualifications and disqualifications of adopters and the categories of adoptable children determine whether a specific adoption petition may be entertained and granted. Practitioners must verify both sets of requirements against the facts of each case before filing.

2. What is the administrative adoption process before the National Authority for Child Care (NACC) under RA 11642, and how does it differ from the former judicial process? Understanding the procedural steps — from filing the petition with the Regional Alternative Child Care Office (RACCO) to the NACC Executive Director’s decision — is essential for proper forum selection, documentation, and compliance with publication and hearing requirements.

3. What are the legal effects of a decree of adoption on parental authority, successional rights, and the use of surnames? The adoption creates a permanent parent‑child relationship with far‑reaching consequences. The lawyer must correctly determine who exercises parental authority, how the adoptee inherits from the adoptive family (and vice versa), and how the adoptee’s name is recorded in the civil registry.

Section II — Legal Analysis

Issue 1: Qualifications and Requirements for Adopters and Adoptees Under Republic Act No. 11642

Applicable Laws & Issuances

Republic Act No. 11642, Sections 21 and 22, set out the current rules. The full text of the law, accessible from the Lawphil website, provides:

• Adopter qualifications (Sec. 21): The adopter must be a Filipino citizen at least 25 years of age, with full civil capacity, good moral character, no conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, emotionally and psychologically capable, and able to support the child. The adopter must be at least 16 years older than the adoptee; this age gap is waivable if the adopter is the biological parent or the spouse of the adoptee’s parent. A foreign national habitually residing in the Philippines for at least five years may adopt under domestic law if the adopter meets the same qualifications, comes from a country that maintains diplomatic relations with the Philippines, and the adoption will be recognized in that country. Spouses must jointly adopt, except when one spouse adopts the other’s legitimate child, one adopts his or her own illegitimate child with the other spouse’s consent, or the spouses are legally separated.

• Who may be adopted (Sec. 22): Any child who has been issued a Certificate Declaring the Child Legally Available for Adoption (CDCLAA); the legitimate child of one spouse by the other; an illegitimate child, for the purpose of improving the child’s status; a person of legal age who has been consistently treated and considered as the child of the adopter for at least three years; a foster child; a child whose adoption has been previously rescinded; and a child of deceased parents, provided no adoption proceedings were ongoing within six months of the parents’ death.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 11642, available on the NACC website, reinforce these provisions and clarify that no child shall be a subject of administrative adoption unless the child’s status has been declared legally available for adoption, except in cases where a CDCLAA is not required (e.g., step‑parent adoption, adult adoption, relative adoption) (IRR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11642).

Case Law Analysis

Robiso v. Ibay, G.R. No. 241893 — 03 November 2025 (J. Lopez, M.)

Focus of Dispute: Whether a DSWD certification declaring a child legally available for adoption is a prerequisite when the child is voluntarily surrendered to an individual who then files for adoption.

Facts: Eleazar Robiso sought to adopt a minor whose unmarried mother had executed an Affidavit of Consent to Adoption, relinquishing parental authority to him. The petition did not include a DSWD certificate. The RTC dismissed the petition motu proprio for lack of sufficiency in form and substance.

Disposition: The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the petition was correctly dismissed because the child, as a voluntarily committed child, required a DSWD certification under Republic Act No. 9523, which petitioner failed to attach.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that adoption proceedings are in rem; the court acquires jurisdiction only after the petition’s sufficiency in form and substance is determined. A child surrendered to an individual is deemed “voluntarily committed” under Article 154 of P.D. 603, and thus a certification declaring the child legally available for adoption is a pre‑requisite. The exception for adoption by a relative within the fourth degree or a step‑parent did not apply. The Court also noted that RA 11642 had been enacted, introducing an administrative process, but because the parties did not invoke it, the case was decided under the prior judicial procedure. The requirement of a DSWD certification remains a core procedural safeguard under RA 11642 as well.

“children surrendered to an individual are deemed to be voluntarily committed for purposes of requiring a certification declaring a child legally available for adoption.”

Evidence Evaluated: The Affidavit of Consent from the biological mother was presented, but the absence of the DSWD certificate was fatal.

Precedential Status: Good law; the requirement of a CDCLAA continues under RA 11642 for children who are not step‑children, relatives, or adults.

Bagcat‑Gullas v. Gullas, G.R. No. 264146 — 07 August 2023 (J. Zalameda)

Focus of Dispute: Whether an adoption decree is valid when the adopter’s legitimate children over ten years old were not impleaded or served with summons.

Facts: Nena and her husband Jose filed to adopt Jo Anne. Jose had three legitimate children, all over ten, who were not made parties and never personally served summons. The RTC granted adoption; later it was set aside as void for lack of jurisdiction.

Disposition: The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling the adoption decree void because indispensable parties were not impleaded and their written consent was not properly secured.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 9(c) of RA 8552 required written consent of “the legitimate and adopted sons/daughters, ten (10) years of age or over, of the adopter(s) and adoptee.” The Court, citing Castro v. Gregorio, held that such consent ensures harmony among prospective siblings and gives notice of potential impact on legitimes. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent proceedings void. The Court acknowledged RA 11642 but noted the case was governed by RA 8552. The substantive requirement of obtaining consent from existing children remains under RA 11642, as the IRR and NACC guidelines continue to require it.

Evidence Evaluated: An alleged Affidavit of Consent was found not genuine; the notarial register entry differed from the document presented. Lack of personal service of summons was undisputed.

Precedential Status: Good law; the consent requirement is maintained in the administrative process under RA 11642, as reflected in the documentary requirements of RACCO petitions.

Landingin v. Republic, G.R. No. 164948 — 27 June 2006 (J. Callejo, Sr.)

Focus of Dispute: Whether an adoption petition may proceed without the written consent of the biological mother when abandonment is not proven, and whether the adopter’s financial capacity must be personal.

Disposition: Petition denied. The adoption was denied because no written consent of the biological mother was secured and abandonment was not established; petitioner also failed to prove personal financial capacity.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the written consent of the biological parent is indispensable under Section 9 of RA 8552. Abandonment must be shown to have existed at the time of adoption and must evince a settled purpose to forego parental duties; merely leaving the child with relatives while working abroad and sending some support does not constitute abandonment. Financial capacity must be personal to the adopter, not dependent on others.

Precedential Status: Still good law on the necessity of biological parent consent unless dispensed with by abandonment or other statutory ground.

Lim petitions, G.R. Nos. 168992‑93 — 21 May 2009

Focus of Dispute: Whether a remarried person may singly adopt children without joining the current spouse in the petition.

Disposition: Petitions denied. The Court held that Section 7 of RA 8552 mandatorily requires joint adoption by married couples, with only three specific exceptions, none of which applied.

Precedential Status: The mandatory joint adoption rule continues under RA 11642, Section 21, with the same limited exceptions.

Doctrinal Synthesis

The qualifications for adopters and adoptees under RA 11642 largely mirror the substantive eligibility criteria of the repealed RA 8552, but the forum has changed. The core requirements — citizenship, age, moral fitness, psychological capability, and financial capacity — remain. The CDCLAA requirement is rigorously enforced for children who are surrendered, abandoned, or neglected, even in an administrative setting, as the NACC’s child protection mandate requires a prior determination of legal availability. Missing consent of biological parents or of the adopter’s own children remains a fatal defect, as those persons hold substantive statutory rights. The joint adoption rule for married couples is strictly applied; a single adoption petition by a married person will be dismissed unless one of the statutory exceptions clearly applies.

Recent Developments

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Robiso v. Ibay (G.R. No. 241893) confirms that the CDCLAA requirement persists even under the administrative system of RA 11642. The press release from the Supreme Court on 20 February 2024 (SC Issues Revised Domestic Adoption Guidelines) states that upon the effectivity of RA 11642, courts may no longer receive or accept new petitions for domestic adoption; all new petitions must be filed with the RACCO/NACC. The NACC website’s relative‑adoption page (RELATIVE ADOPTION | National Authority for Child Care) details streamlined procedures for relatives within the fourth civil degree, noting that a CDCLAA is not required for relative adoptions — consistent with the statutory exceptions.

Analysis

When evaluating a prospective adoption, the practitioner must first determine whether the child falls into a category that requires a CDCLAA. If the child has been surrendered, abandoned, or neglected, the child must first go through the administrative process for issuance of a CDCLAA before a petition for adoption may be filed. If the child is a step‑child, a relative within the fourth degree, or an adult, no CDCLAA is needed. Next, the adopter’s qualifications must be verified: citizenship, age gap (16 years, waivable only in specific cases), moral fitness (NBI clearance, possibly psychological evaluation), and financial capacity (personal income/assets sufficient to support). For married couples, the petition must be joint, except if the adoption is of the spouse’s own child or a legally separated spouse. The written consent of all required parties — biological parents, the adoptee if 10 years or older, the adopter’s own legitimate/adopted children 10 years or older, and the adopter’s spouse — must be obtained in notarized form and attached. Any missing consent is a jurisdictional defect that, if discovered later, may void the entire adoption.

Issue 2: The Administrative Adoption Process Before the National Authority for Child Care (NACC) Under RA 11642

Applicable Laws & Issuances

Republic Act No. 11642 abolished the judicial adoption process and vested original and exclusive jurisdiction over domestic administrative adoption in the NACC, a quasi‑judicial agency under the Department of Social Welfare and Development. The NACC exercises its functions through Regional Alternative Child Care Offices (RACCOs). The law and its IRR outline the following steps:

1. Pre‑Adoption Services: Prospective adoptive parents must attend a Pre‑Adoption Forum and obtain a certificate of attendance (mandatory per NACC guidelines).
2. Filing of Petition: The petition for adoption, with complete supporting documents, is filed at the RACCO having jurisdiction over the place where the child was found, abandoned, voluntarily committed, or where the prospective adopter resides (How to Adopt in the Philippines: A Step By Step Guide - De Borja Law).
3. Publication and Posting: The RACCO orders the publication of the petition and notice of hearing, similar to the former judicial process, to vest jurisdiction over the res.
4. Home Study and Child Study: A social worker conducts a home study report on the adopter and a child study report on the adoptee, both of which are submitted to the RACCO.
5. Mandatory Appearance: The adopter and adoptee (if of sufficient age) appear before the RACCO social worker.
6. Recommendation: The RACCO transmits the packaged petition along with its recommendation to the NACC Executive Director within a prescribed period.
7. Decision: The NACC Executive Director issues a Decision granting or denying the petition. Party may file a Motion for Reconsideration, and thereafter appeal to the NACC Council or to the Court of Appeals.
8. Post‑Adoption Monitoring: After the Order of Adoption becomes final, the adopter must coordinate with the RACCO for post‑adoption monitoring for a period of at least one year.

The process is designed to be faster and less adversarial, while still providing due process through publication and the opportunity for interested parties to oppose (Simplified domestic adoption process | DivinaLaw).

Case Law Analysis

The case law in the Research Materials primarily interprets the repealed judicial process under RA 8552. However, several principles remain directly applicable because the administrative process under RA 11642 retained analogous procedural safeguards:

• Jurisdiction through publication: In Republic v. Court of Appeals (Caranto), G.R. No. 103695, 15 March 1996, the Court held that a clerical error in the published notice did not invalidate the adoption because the purpose of notice was served. The administrative process under RA 11642 also requires publication, and minor defects that do not mislead are likely cured.
• Necessity of consent: As already discussed under Issue 1, cases like Bagcat‑Gullas and Landingin establish that the absence of required consents renders the proceedings void ab initio. The same substantive consent requirements are embedded in the NACC documentary checklist, and the NACC will deny the petition if written consents are not attached.
• Effect of pending cases: The Supreme Court in Bagcat‑Gullas noted that RA 11642 allows parties to withdraw judicial petitions and re‑file administratively. Many currently pending judicial cases may thus be transferred to the administrative track.

Recent Developments

The web sources confirm that RA 11642 is now the exclusive domestic adoption route. The NACC’s website provides detailed guidelines for relative adoption (RELATIVE ADOPTION | National Authority for Child Care), and a practitioner guide from Padin Law (Guide to Administrative Adoption Philippines) summarizes eligibility and filing procedures. The Philippine Information Agency reports that the process is now “faster and cheaper” under the RACCO (Adoption now faster, cheaper under administrative process, RACCO 7 says).

Analysis

The administrative adoption process under RA 11642 is the exclusive remedy for new domestic adoptions. Lawyers must file petitions with the appropriate RACCO, not with the Family Court. The procedural steps — pre‑adoption forum, filing, publication, social study, recommendation, decision — must be followed sequentially. The substantive requirements (CDCLAA, consents, joint adoption) remain identical in substance to those under RA 8552, and the same strict compliance is expected. A failure to attach a required CDCLAA or missing consent will result in outright dismissal or, if a decree is obtained, a voidable adoption that may be challenged. The NACC’s regulations and checklists, published on its website, should be the primary reference for documentary requirements.

Issue 3: Legal Effects of Adoption on Parental Authority, Successional Rights, and the Use of Surnames

Applicable Laws & Issuances

Republic Act No. 11642, Sections 41, 42, and 43, set out the legal effects:

• Parental Authority (Sec. 42): Except when the biological parent is the spouse of the adopter, all legal ties between the biological parents and the adoptee are severed and vested in the adopter(s). This includes the right to custody, the duty of support, and all other incidents of the natural parent‑child relationship. If the adopter is the spouse of the biological parent, the biological parent retains parental authority jointly with the adopter.
• Legitimacy and Filiation (Sec. 41): The adoptee is considered the legitimate child of the adopter for all intents and purposes. Crucially, the legitimate filiation created between the adopter and the adoptee extends to the adopter’s parents, legitimate siblings, and legitimate descendants. This is a significant expansion from the old rule under RA 8552 and earlier laws, which confined the relationship to the adopter and adoptee only.
• Succession (Sec. 43): In both testate and intestate succession, the adopter and adoptee have reciprocal rights of succession without distinction from legitimate filiation. Combined with Section 41, the adoptee now inherits not only from the adopter but also from the adopter’s parents and siblings as if a legitimate child/grandchild/sibling, and vice versa.
• Use of Surname (Sec. 41, second paragraph): The adopter may choose the name by which the adoptee is to be known. Upon issuance of the Order of Adoption, an amended birth certificate is issued bearing the adopter’s surname, and the original birth record is cancelled and sealed. No notation of the adoption is made on the new certificate.

The earlier doctrine under RA 8552 (Sec. 16, 17, 18) was more limited: succession was reciprocal between adopter and adoptee only, and the relationship did not extend to the adopter’s relatives. The Family Code and Civil Code provisions that previously governed (e.g., Art. 365, Civil Code, requiring the adoptee to use the adopter’s surname) continue to inform the current practice but are now subsumed under RA 11642.

Case Law Analysis

Sayson v. Court of Appeals — 23 January 1992 (J. Regalado)

Focus of Dispute: Whether adopted children (Delia and Edmundo Sayson) could inherit by right of representation from the parents of their adoptive father, Teodoro Sayson.

Disposition: The Court denied the right of representation. The adoptees could inherit only from the adopters themselves, not from the adopters’ ascendants or collaterals.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that adoption creates a legal relationship exclusively between the adopter and the adopted; it does not extend to the blood relatives of the adopter. The adoptee is a legitimate child of the adopter only for purposes of the mutual rights and obligations between them, not for the purpose of entering into the adopters’ wider family. This principle, known as the “exclusivity rule,” was derived from Teotico v. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406.

Precedential Status: This doctrine governed successional rights under the Civil Code and RA 8552. However, RA 11642, Section 41, has abrogated the exclusivity rule by extending legitimate filiation to the adopter’s parents, legitimate siblings, and legitimate descendants. The Sayson ruling is no longer controlling on the scope of succession for adoptions governed by RA 11642. It remains relevant for adoptions finalized before the effectivity of RA 11642, where the old law determines the extent of succession rights.

In Re: Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 148311 — 31 March 2005 (J. Panganiban)

Focus of Dispute: Whether an illegitimate child adopted by her natural father may use the surname of her natural mother as her middle name.

Disposition: The Court allowed the use of the mother’s surname as a middle name, holding that while no law expressly permits it, none prohibits it, and the child’s welfare is paramount.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized liberal construction of adoption laws in favor of the child’s best interest. Allowing the use of the mother’s surname as middle name preserves maternal lineage and eliminates stigma of illegitimacy, while maintaining her rights as an intestate heir of the biological mother. This principle remains consistent with RA 11642’s child‑centered approach; the law grants the adopter the right to choose the adoptee’s name, and a middle name reflecting biological origin may be permitted if it serves the child’s welfare.

Precedential Status: Good law on the flexibility in naming, though the specific rule under RA 11642 now gives the adopter primary discretion.

Santos v. Republic, G.R. No. 250520 — 05 May 2021 (J. Caguioa)

Focus of Dispute: Whether an adopted child may change his surname from that of the adopter to another surname reflecting biological ties.

Disposition: The petition was denied; the Court found no compelling reason to deviate from the mandatory rule that the adoptee bears the adopter’s surname.

Precedential Status: Good law; under RA 11642, the adoptee bears the surname of the adopter as reflected in the amended birth certificate. A change to a different surname would require a separate judicial petition under Rule 103 and a showing of proper and reasonable cause.

Doctrinal Synthesis

The legal effects of adoption under RA 11642 are broad and transformative. Parental authority is completely transferred to the adopter, except where the biological parent is the adopter’s spouse, in which case they share authority. Succession rights are now reciprocal and extend beyond the adopter‑adoptee axis. The adoptee is a legitimate child, grandchild, and sibling of the adopter’s relatives, capable of inheriting from and being inherited by the adopter’s parents, legitimate siblings, and legitimate descendants. This statutory expansion overturns the narrow Sayson doctrine, but only for adoptions under RA 11642. For adoptions finalized before 28 January 2022, the old exclusivity rule continues to apply unless the parties avail themselves of a recognition mechanism (if any) under the new law. The adoptee’s surname is changed to that of the adopter, and the amended birth certificate is issued without any notation of adoption, protecting the child’s privacy.

Recent Developments

The extension of legitimate filiation to the adopter’s relatives has generated considerable commentary. A DivinaLaw article (Revisiting successional rights of the adoptee) notes that Section 41 overcomes the restrictive Sayson rule, so the adoptee should now inherit ab intestato from the adopter’s parents, siblings, and descendants. A Conventus Law piece (Philippines - Relatives By Adoption: Breaking Exclusivity Rule (1)) and the Daily Guardian (May an adopted child inherit from the relatives of the adopter?) similarly highlight the change. These are not Supreme Court decisions but reflect the accepted interpretation of the statute.

Analysis

When advising clients on the effects of a decreed adoption, the practitioner must first determine the date the adoption was finalized. Adoptions finalized on or after 28 January 2022 enjoy the expanded successional rights under RA 11642 Section 41. The adoptee is, for all purposes, a legitimate child of the adopter and a legitimate grandchild, sibling, etc., of the adopter’s immediate family. This means the adoptee will participate in the intestate estate of the adopter’s parents alongside other legitimate grandchildren, and the adoptive family members may inherit from the adoptee. The old rule of exclusivity is no longer applicable to new adoptions. In drafting wills, adopters should be aware that the adoptee has a legitime equal to that of a legitimate child, and any testamentary disposition must respect that. On the surname issue, the adopter’s choice prevails; the original birth record is sealed, so the adoption is not apparent from the face of the new birth certificate. If a biological surname is desired as a middle name, it may be permitted if it serves the child’s best interest, as indicated in Garcia, but the adopter’s surname must be the primary surname.

Section III — Action Plan & Evidence Guide

Recommended Strategy: Before filing an administrative petition for adoption, conduct a thorough due‑diligence review of the child’s status and the adopter’s qualifications, gather all required consents, and verify that the child, if surrendered or abandoned, already has a CDCLAA. Engage a social worker early to prepare the home study and child study reports. File the petition with the correct RACCO, ensuring publication is properly done.

Action Steps:

1. Determine if CDCLAA is required — If the child is not a step‑child, relative within the fourth degree, or adult, verify that a Certificate Declaring the Child Legally Available for Adoption has been issued by the DSWD/NACC. If not, file a separate petition for issuance of the CDCLAA before the adoption petition.
2. Gather all written consents — Obtain notarized written consents from: (a) the biological parent(s), unless abandonment or other statutory ground for waiver exists; (b) the adoptee if 10 years or older; (c) all legitimate, adopted, and illegitimate children of the adopter who are 10 years or older; (d) the adopter’s spouse, if the adopter is married (except for step‑parent adoptions or legal separation). Each consent must be informed and voluntarily given.
3. Prepare documentary exhibits — Secure the following: PSA birth certificates of adopter and adoptee; marriage certificate of adopter (if married); NBI and police clearances for adopter; medical and psychological evaluation reports; proof of financial capacity (income tax returns, bank statements, employment certificate); pre‑adoption forum certificate; child care plan with named temporary custodians; three character reference letters; recent photos; verification against forum shopping.
4. File petition with the appropriate RACCO — The petition should be filed at the RACCO of the city or municipality where the child was found or committed, or where the adopter resides. Pay the required filing fee.
5. Comply with publication and appearance — After the RACCO orders publication, ensure the notice is published for the required period and posted at designated places. Attend the mandatory appearance and all scheduled conferences.
6. Coordinate post‑adoption monitoring — Upon the grant of the Order of Adoption, register the order with the Local Civil Registrar, secure a Certificate of Finality, and submit the new Certificate of Live Birth to the RACCO. Cooperate with the RACCO social worker during the one‑year monitoring period.

Evidence Checklist:

• Certificate Declaring the Child Legally Available for Adoption (CDCLAA) — proves the child’s legal availability; obtained from the NACC/DSWD.
• Notarized Written Consents of all required parties — proves compliance with the mandatory consent requirements; prepared by the parties and notarized.
• Home Study Report and Child Study Report — attests to the adopter’s suitability and the child’s background; prepared by the RACCO social worker.
• Psychological/Medical Clearance — shows emotional and psychological capability; from a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist.
• NBI and Police Clearances — documents absence of criminal record involving moral turpitude; from the NBI and local police.
• Proof of Financial Capacity (ITR, bank statements, employment certificate) — demonstrates ability to support the child; from the adopter’s employer/financial institutions.
• Pre‑Adoption Forum Certificate — mandatory proof of attendance; from the RACCO or NACC.
• PSA‑issued Birth and Marriage Certificates — establishes identity, age, and filiation; from the Philippine Statistics Authority.
• Publication Affidavit and Placement of PAPA — proves compliance with jurisdictional publication and the Pre‑Adoption Placement Authority; from the newspaper and RACCO.

⚠️ This is AI-generated legal research for reference only. It does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed Philippine attorney before making important legal decisions.

References

Legislation & Regulatory Issuances

• Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act (Republic Act No. 11642)
• Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8552)
• IRR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11642 — elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph

Case Law

• Eleazar R. Robiso v. Hon. Marie Grace Javier Ibay, G.R. No. 241893 (03 November 2025)
• G.R. No. 241893 — Eleazar R. Robiso v. Hon. Marie Grace Javier Ibay
• Nena Bagcat‑Gullas v. Joselito F. Gullas, G.R. No. 264146 (07 August 2023)
• Diwata Ramos Landingin v. Republic, G.R. No. 164948 (27 June 2006)
• In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim / Michael Jude P. Lim, G.R. Nos. 168992‑93 (21 May 2009)
• In Re: Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 148311 (31 March 2005)
• Republic v. Court of Appeals (Maximo Wong), G.R. No. 97906 (21 May 1992)
• Sayson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 89224‑25 (23 January 1992)
• Santos v. Republic, G.R. No. 250520 (05 May 2021)
• SC Issues Revised Domestic Adoption Guidelines — sc.judiciary.gov.ph
• RELATIVE ADOPTION | National Authority for Child Care — www.nacc.gov.ph
• Revisiting successional rights of the adoptee - DivinaLaw — www.divinalaw.com
• Philippines - Relatives By Adoption: Breaking Exclusivity Rule (1) — conventuslaw.com