1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Embassies that since they are not residents in their countries and habitually residing in the Philippines, the said agencies could not issue the documents required by the domestic courts in support to their Petitions filed for domestic adoption. If ever their cases will be endorsed to ICAB by the courts, ICAB will file a manifestation on this matter so that the domestic adoption could be pursued. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, even if the instant adoption proceeding would be referred to the ICAB, as what the RTC did, there is still a high probability that the ICAB will file a manifestation so that the domestic adoption before the trial court could be pursued, considering the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the referral to the ICAB would only cause a delay in the adoption proceedings, a matter that would be clearly prejudicial to the interest of the adoptee and the petitioners. At this juncture, it must also be stressed that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in its Comment,[33] noted that the dismissal by the CA was based purely on procedural grounds. Citing Aguam v. Court of Appeals,[34] the OSG opined that: "It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not miscarriage of justice."[35] In addition, We also note that petitioners' effort during the proceedings in the trial court have already gone as far as securing authenticated copies of the relevant California laws on adoption, U.S. immigration laws, the taking of expert witness Ms. Tifany Markee's deposition through written interrogatories, and the submission of several documents to support their petition for adoption. We also take cognizance of the fact that the child, Innah, had been living with petitioners for six years and has recognized them as her parents. In view of this, We hold that since the case properly falls under the Domestic Adoption Act, it is for the best interest of the child that the instant case be speedily disposed by continuing the proceedings in the trial court for the determination of whether petitioners are indeed qualified to adopt the child, instead of inappropriately referring the instant domestic adoption case to the ICAB where the proceedings may have to start anew and might be referred back to the trial court for the continuation of the domestic adoption proceedings. Settled is the rule that in adoption proceedings, the welfare of the child is of paramount interest. The Supreme Court's pronouncement in In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia[36] is instructive: Liberal Construction of Adoption Statutes In Favor Of Adoption— It is a settled rule that adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, should be liberally construed to carry out the beneficent purposes of adoption. The interests and welfare of the adopted child are of primary and paramount https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65992 10/13