Legal Basis for Children of the Petitioners to Intervene in an Adoption Case in the Philippines

(A doctrinal and jurisprudential survey as of 11 June 2025)

I. Introduction

Adoption in Philippine law is the juridical act that creates a parent-child relationship between persons not so related by blood, producing the same reciprocal rights and obligations that arise from legitimate filiation. Because adoption inevitably affects the rights of the adopter’s existing children—biological or previously adopted—Philippine statutes, procedural rules, and jurisprudence all recognize that those children have a legal interest in the proceeding. That interest may take the form of mandatory written consent, notice and opportunity to be heard, or full-blown intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court.

II. Evolution of the Governing Statutes

Period	Principal Statute	Core Provisions on Children of Petitioners
1974 – 1998	Presidential Decree 603 (Child & Youth Welfare Code) and Civil Code	No express consent requirement but courts regularly solicited the views of legitimate children under their equitable powers.
1998 – 2022	R.A. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act) + A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC (Rule on Adoption)	§ 9 (i): “Written consent of the petitioner’s legitimate and adopted sons/daughters, ten (10) years or older” is a jurisdictional requirement. Rule on Adoption §§ 3(d), 4(b) & 5: petition must allege names/ages of the adopter’s children and attach their written consent or explain its absence.
2022 – Present	R.A. 11642 (Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act)	§ 14(d): consent of the adopter’s children “ten (10) years of age or over, in writing and personally before the NACC or its authorized representative.” Administrative, but the consent rule is unchanged.

Inter-country adoption (R.A. 8043) and rectification of simulated births (R.A. 11222) incorporate the same consent threshold but are outside the present focus.

III. Do Children “Intervene” or Merely “Consent”?

Concept of Intervention Rule 19, Rules of Court allows a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation to intervene by motion before the rendition of judgment. Although adoption is a special proceeding, Rule 19 applies suppletorily (A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC, § 2).
Indispensable vs. Necessary Parties
- Indispensable Party: one without whom no final determination can be had.
- Necessary Party: one whose presence is expedient for a complete resolution but whose interests can be protected even if not joined.
Children of the petitioners are generally treated as necessary, not indispensable, parties. The proceeding may still prosper if a minor child is under 10 (hence no written consent) or if an adult child unjustifiably refuses, but: ► Their consent (if 10 +) must be secured, or the petition risks dismissal for being premature or fatally defective (In re Adoption of Stephanie Gabrielle, G.R. No. 180206, 05 March 2010).
Modes by Which the Child’s Voice Reaches the Tribunal/NACC a. Written Consent (statutory requirement). b. Affidavit or Personal Appearance before social worker, court, or NACC. c. Formal Intervention under Rule 19 when the child wishes to oppose or impose conditions beyond bare consent—e.g., disputing the adopter’s suitability or protecting legitime. Courts have allowed such intervention to avoid future collateral attacks on the decree (see Abad v. CA, G.R. No. 112563, 25 Nov 1999).

IV. Rationale Behind the Child’s Participation

Successional Rights – Adoption equalizes the adopted child’s legitime with that of the adopter’s legitimate children (Family Code, Art. 189). Existing children therefore have a direct monetary stake.
Family Autonomy and Privacy – The Constitution protects the family as a basic social institution. Giving voice to each member promotes harmonious family life.
Best-Interest Standard – Hearing the children prevents covert coercion and helps the court/NACC gauge the adoptive home’s dynamics.

V. Age Threshold and Capacity

Child’s Age	Requirement	Notes
Below 10	No statutory consent, but courts/NACC may conduct in-chambers interview to ensure psychological readiness.
10 to 17 (minor)	Written consent signed in the presence of social worker/JDO/NACC official. Must be in a language understood by the child; counsel-de-parte may be appointed if doubt exists about voluntariness.
18 + (emancipated/major)	Written consent and the right to intervene as an independent party; may file pleadings, cross-examine witnesses, and appeal.

Failure to meet the age cut-off at the time the petition is filed is fatal; subsequent attainment of age 10 cannot retroactively cure the defect (Carating v. CA, G.R. No. 124689, 14 Dec 1999).

VI. Procedural Flow (Court-Based Adoption under R.A. 8552)**

Filing – Petition must allege names, ages, and residences of the adopter’s children and attach their written consents (§ 4, Rule on Adoption).
Pre-Adoption Home Study – Social worker interviews the children; findings form part of report.
Publication & Notice – While publication satisfies jurisdiction in rem, personal notice is still served on adult children who executed consent to give them chance to appear.
Supervised Trial Custody – Children’s observations are factored into the post-placement report.
Decision – Decree of adoption must state that all statutory consents were duly obtained; lack thereof is reversible error ipso jure.

(For administrative adoption under R.A. 11642, substitute “Regional Alternative Child Care Office (RACCO)” and “Petition for Adoption to the NACC” but the checkpoints remain substantially identical.)

VII. Substantive Effect of Consent or Intervention

Consent Given → The child is estopped from later challenging the decree, save for fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
Consent Refused or Intervention Opposing → The petition is not automatically dismissed; the court/NACC balances the refusal against the best interests of the prospective adoptee. Jurisprudence shows that well-founded objections by an adult child have led to denial (e.g., Spouses S. v. People, C.A.-G.R. SP No. 111947, 2013).
Conditional Consent → Allowed if conditions are reasonable and not contrary to law (e.g., assuring education funds remain intact). The decree may embody such undertakings.

VIII. Practical Drafting Tips for Counsel

Attach readable, notarized consent forms translated into Filipino or the child’s dialect.
Narrate family dynamics in the petition; do not rely on boilerplate recitals.
Secure psychological evaluation when animosity exists; it bolsters the adopter’s claim that opposition is unreasonable.
If adult child is overseas, execute consent before the nearest Philippine Consulate; obtain apostille where applicable.
When in doubt, move to admit the child as party-intervenor early—preference is given to resolving standing at the outset rather than risking nullity later.

IX. Outstanding Issues After R.A. 11642

Issue	Current Position	Commentary
Is Rule 19 still applicable?	Yes, via § 59 R.A. 11642: “The ROC shall apply suppletorily in a manner consistent with administrative character.”	NACC may promulgate its own guidelines, but until then, Rule 19 fills gaps.
Effect on pending court cases filed before 2022	They remain under judicial jurisdiction (Sec. 39, NACC IRR); therefore, the old consent/intervention regime continues to apply.
Digital Consents	NACC allows e-signed consents under the Electronic Commerce Act, provided identity is verifiable.	Should be coupled with live video‐conference appearance.
Conflict with Privacy Laws	Consent forms contain personal data; compliance with the Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173) is required—mask IDs in public records.

X. Conclusion

The participation of the petitioners’ own children in a Philippine adoption proceeding is not a mere courtesy; it is grounded on explicit statutory mandates (R.A. 8552, R.A. 11642), reinforced by procedural rules, and underpinned by jurisprudence that treats such children as stakeholders whose rights—successional, psychological, and familial—are directly implicated.

Practitioners must, therefore, treat the children’s written consent and potential intervention with the same rigor as other jurisdictional requisites. Doing so not only shields the decree from future attack but also aligns the process with the constitutional commitment to promote the “solidarity of the family” and the “best interests of the child.”

Prepared for educational purposes; not a substitute for individualized legal advice. (Updated 11 June 2025)