You are on page 1of 2

In the legal point of view, in the absence of law on surrogacy in the Philippines, C is deemed to be

the mother of the child. A and B as the putative parents have no vested right conferred upon them
by law to enforce a specific right that can be considered to be legally demandable and enforceable
as the right to be recognized as the parents of the child, more so for A (wife) to claim as the lawful
mother of the child that was born out of the womb of C. Thus, C is undisputedly considered to be
the biological mother of the child.

The Family Code of the Philippines mainly provides the specific provision in establishing the
paternity but not maternity relation to a child. Indeed, it is difficult to dispute the character of a
biological mother of a child from whose womb the latter came from. The paternity and filiation
provision in the Family Code of the Philippines that gave consideration in cases of artificial
insemination is found in Article 164 that provides:

Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm of the
husband or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate children of the husband and wife,
provided that both of them authorized or ratified such insemination in a written instrument
executed and signed by them before the birth of the child ..

It is clear from the letters of the law that the artificial insemination contemplated by the law is that
one made on the wife, giving no room for allowing a surrogate mother to whom the insemination
may be done. Under this premise, the law does not confer upon A and B the right to claim parental
right over the child that actually came from the womb of C to be considered as their legitimate
child, unless they resort to adoption.

Another argument that may be raised is there was a contract for surrogacy among A, B and C. The
said contract is against public policy and thus void ab initio. For a contract to be valid, the Civil
Code of the Philippines requires the following requisites in Article 1318:

1. Consent of the parties

2. Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract
3. Cause of the obligation which is established

For an object to be a valid subject of a contract, Article 1347 of the Civil Code requires that the
same should be within the commerce of men. A child is not within the commerce of men and thus
cannot be an object of a contract. More so, the female reproductive organ is likewise beyond the
commerce of men and is therefore cannot be a valid object of a contract. Article 1352 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines provides that:

Contracts without cause or with an unlawful cause produce no effect whatever. The cause is
unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

Therefore, it can be concluded that a child or a human being and a female reproductive organ
cannot be a lawful object of a contract, on the ground of unlawful cause as it is contrary to law,
against public policy and good customs.

Even the Organ Donation Act of 1991 in the Philippines only sustains the validity of donating any
part of the body of the donor only during such period of after or immediately before his
death(Section 4 (b) Organ Donation Act of 1991).
Owing to these existing provisions defined in the legal systems of the Philippines, C is the
mother of the child in the eyes of the law.