Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

​

Spouses Antonio Ragudo and Eugenia Paderes filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City to annual the order of the justice of the peace of Tayabas, Quezon, declaring Emelita Pasno, their adopted child, which order was already final.

​

The spouses alleged substantially that they had been induced by Emelita’s parents to believe that the adoption proceeding was merely for the purpose of transferring to 8-year old Emelita some guerilla educational benefits.

​

Plaintiffs further alleged that the adoption had been secured through 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.             

​

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.

​

The judge of CFI dismissed the case upholding the defendant’s contention. Hence, this appeal.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the contention of the defendants should be sustained.

 

HELD:

No. there is no question that the Justice of the Peace Court and the Court of First Instance have concurrent jurisdiction over adoption cases. However, this was not an adoption case, but rather a civil action to annul an Order of a Justice of Peace Court, allegedly obtained through fraud. In such action, Justice of the Peace Courts cannot take cognizance. It falls within the general jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

​

Hence, the appealed order was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.