G.R. No. 85044 June 3 1992 [Parental Authority]
FACTS:
In October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, a minor, shot and killed
Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle. Jennifer's natural parents filed civil
complaints for damages with the RTC against Bundoc's natural parents.
In December 1981, spouses Rapisura filed a petition to adopt
Adelberto. The petition was granted in November 1982.
Adelberto's parents, in their Answer, claimed that the
spouses Rapisura were indispensable parties to the action since parental
authority had shifted to them from the moment the petition for adoption was decreed.
Spouses Tamargo contended that since Adelberto was then actually living with
his natural parents, parental authority had not ceased by mere filing and
granting of the petition for adoption. Trial court dismissed the spouses
Tamargo's petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the spouses Rapisura are the indispensable parties to actions committed by Adelberto.
RULING:
No. In Article 221 of the Family Code states that: "Parents
and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the
injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated
children living in their company and
under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defences provided by
law." In the case at bar, parental authority over Adelberto was
still lodged with the natural parents at the time the shooting incident
happened. It follows that the natural parents are the indispensable parties to
the suit for damages.
SC held that parental authority had not been retroactively
transferred to and vested in the adopting parents, at the time the shooting
happened. It do not consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree
of the adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing
at the time when adopting parents had no actual custody over the adopted child.
Retroactive affect may be essential if it permit the accrual of some benefit or
advantage in favor of the adopted child.
