Republic vs Elepano, GR. No. 92542 (Case Digest)

 

 Republic vs Elepano,

GR. No. 92542

Facts:

            Private respondent Corazon Punsalan filed a verified petition for adoption before the RTC-Caloocan City of the minors Pinky Punsalan, the daughter of her full blood brother, and Ellyn Mae Punsalan Urbano, the daughter of her full blood sister, be declared her daughters by adoption for all intents and purposes.

                Private respondent filed a "MOTION FOR TAKING OF DEPOSITION" on the ground that she received an urgent call from the United Nations Office in Geneva, Switzerland requiring her to report for work.  Respondent judge granted the motion and ordered that notice of the taking of the deposition on January 12, 1990 at 10:00 a.m. be furnished to the OSG.  On the same date, the respondent judge issued an order setting the hearing for the petition for adoption on February 27, 1990 at 10:00 a.m. and directed the publication of the said order once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Metro Manila. A copy of said order as well as a copy of the said petition for adoption was likewise sent to the OSG.

On January 12, 1990, private respondent's deposition was taken. Despite notice, no representative from the OSG appeared to oppose the taking of the deposition.  The OSG, filed an "Opposition to the Deposition", averring that Section 1 of Rule 24 of the Rules of Court allows deposition by leave of Court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or property subject of the action. Since the jurisdictional requirement of publication has not been complied with, the OSG goes on to argue, the lower court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the defendant so much so that the taking of the deposition cannot yet be allowed at this stage. Respondent judge denied the said Opposition.

On February 27, 1990, after the notice of the hearing for the petition for adoption had been duly published in The Manila Chronicle in accordance with law. Again, despite notice, the OSG failed to appear in the said hearing and in all the subsequent hearings for the petition for adoption. Respondent judge granted the petition for adoption

 

Issue:

            Whether depositions should not be allowed in adoption proceedings until the publication requirement has been fully complied.

 

Held:

            NO. While it is true that in an action in personam, personal service of summons within the forum or voluntary appearance in the case is essential for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, in an adoption case which involves the status of a person, there is no particular defendant to speak of since the action is one in rem. In such case, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is a non-essential condition for the taking of a deposition for the jurisdiction of the court is based on its power over the res, to render judgment with respect to such "thing" (or status, as in this case) so as to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection against the right so established.

                Indeed, publication of the scheduled hearing for the petition for adoption is necessary for the validity of a decree of adoption but not for the purpose merely of taking a deposition. In taking a deposition, no substantial rights are affected since depositions may or may not be presented or may even be objected to when formally offered as evidence at the trial of the main case later on.