JAVIER, Joseph Sebastian R.

Problem #1, Set of Questions #1

Prof. Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan
11 Nov 2019

a. What are the relevant laws on the matter?

The relevant laws and regulations in this case are RA 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of
1998, A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC or the Rule on Adoption, the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, RA 11222 or the Simulated Birth Rectification Act, and
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Act No. 3753.

RA 8552 states what constitutes simulation of birth and provides the criminal liability of a person
found guilty of committing the offense. In this case, Lani is guilty of simulation of birth, and RA
8552 provides the consequences of her offense.

RA 11222, signed into law by President Duterte on 21 February 2019, provides the possibility of
absolving from all criminal, civil, and administrative liability persons found guilty of simulation
of birth, subject to certain conditions. It is relevant in this case as it can be contended that Lani
can avail of amnesty under this law. It is argued below, however, that she cannot.

The Rule on Adoption defines a foundling. Rose was found abandoned in the Minor Basilica of
the Black Nazarene in Quiapo, but she cannot be considered a foundling under this law, as will
be explained below.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Act No. 3753 enumerates the duties of a person
who finds a foundling. In this case, Ed found Rose but failed to perform any of the duties
imposed on him by this law.

b. Argue in favor of an adoptee’s record of birth reflecting the history of the child and that
in the facts of the case the biological mother has rights superior to the adopter in this
case.

An adoptee’s record of birth should reflect the history of the child

The adoptee’s record of birth should reflect the adoption history of the child because
jurisprudence has consistently established that a certificate of live birth should contain the facts
as they existed at the time of birth.1 The current law2 requires the issuance of a new amended
certificate of live birth that does not bear any notation that it is an amended version. This would
lead third persons, and possibly the adoptee, to mistakenly believe that the facts in the amended
birth certificate are the facts that existed at the time of birth. The paramount consideration in
adoption is the interests of the adoptee, and the adoptee has the right to know information
about himself before his adoption, such as his original name and the name of his birth parents.

The rationale behind this new rule is to put an end to the practice by some civil registrars of
merely stamping “amended” on the original birth certificate and adding marginal notes about the

1
2 RA 8552, Section 14. Civil Registry Record. – An amended certificate of birth shall be issued by the Civil Registry,
as required by the Rules of Court, attesting to the fact that the adoptee is the child of the adopter(s) by being
registered with his/her surname. The original certificate of bbirth shall be stamped “cancelled”
facts of adoption.3 It is preposterous to require the issuance of a new amended birth certificate –
containing no notation that it is an amended version - just to remedy this problem. There are
other simpler ways to stop this old practice, such as by implementing stricter regulations on
amending the birth certificates of adoptees.

If an adoptee’s record of birth reflects his or her adoption history, it would also be easier to
determine whether there was simulation of birth and who was responsible for the offense. In this
case, if upon adoption by Anita Yu Koh of Rose, a new certificate of live birth was issued
containing no notation that it was an amended version, Lani’s name would not appear anywhere
in the new amended birth certificate. The original birth certificate would be sealed in accordance
with Section 16 of the Rule on Adoption, and it can be opened only upon a court order.4

The biological mother has rights superior to the adopter

In this case, the biological mother has rights superior to the adopter because Lani, the woman
who took care of the child and gave her up to an orphanage, simulated the birth records and
never acquired parental rights over the child. There was no parental authority that Lani could
vest on Anita, the adopter.

Lani did not obtain a foundling certificate but instead caused the fictitious registration of the
child under her name, even though she was not the biological mother of the child. This
constitutes simulation of birth under Sec. 215 of the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, for which
she shall be punished by imprisonment and a fine. The Simulated Birth Rectification Act6
absolves from all criminal, civil, and administrative liability all persons guilty of simulation of
birth who file a petition for adoption with an application for rectification within 10 years from
the effectivity of the Act. However, Lani cannot file for a petition for adoption anymore as the
child has already been adopted by Anita Yu Koh and has been out of Lani’s custody for three
years. Even assuming for the sake of argument that she can be absolved of all liability arising
from the simulation of birth and rectify the simulated birth records by virtue of RA 11222, this
remains a mere possibility, and until she actually goes through the procedure for rectification, the
simulation of birth remains.

Nor can Lani claim that she became the adopter of Rose by taking care of her for three years.
Adoption requires a judicial decree issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. That there was
open and continuous possession of the status of an adopted child cannot serve as proof of
adoption, for adoption is a proceeding in rem and requires a judicial proceeding.

Although Anita Yu Koh adopted Rose in good faith, and there is no showing that either she or
the Sto. Niño Child Caring Agency knew about the simulation of Rose’s birth records, her rights
over the child cannot prevail over the biological mother’s.

Since Lani is guilty of simulation of birth, she never acquired parental rights over the child, and
no parent-child relationship was ever created between Lani and Rose. She had no parental rights

3
Aguiling-Pangalangan, E. (2013). Not Bone of My Bone But Still My Own, p. 168.
4
Sec. 16. 3) [The decree shall order] the Civil Registrar of the place where the adoptee was registered: c. to seal the
original certificate of birth in the civil registry records which can be opened only upon order of the court which
issued the decree of adoption.
5 Sec. 21, b. Any person who shall cause the fictitious registration of the birth of a child under the name(s) of a

person(s) who is not his/her biological parent(s) shall be guilty of simulation of birth, and shall be punished by
prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not exceeding Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)
6
to relinquish to Sto. Niño Child Caring Agency. There were no legal ties to be vested on the
adopter because no legal ties were ever formed between Lani and Rose in the first place.

The biological mother has rights superior to the adopter, but Rosario Reyno has to prove that
she is indeed the biological mother by adducing proof, such as a certificate of live birth. She can
also present testimonies, including that of the birth attendant in the Paanakan where she gave
birth.

It also bears noting that Rosario, if her version of events is to be believed, did not abandon Rose.
Abandonment is not just physical separation; it involves a deliberate relinquishment of all
parental claims, rights, and duties over a child. In this case, the child was kidnapped, taken from
Rosario against her will. The biological parent has a natural right to his or her child. Unless it can
be shown that the biological parent has relinquished his or her parental authority, rights, and
duties over the child, the biological parent will have a higher claim than anyone else. In this case,
Rosario did not consent to the adoption. Nor was there abandonment, which could have been a
ground for dispensing with Rosario’s consent.

c. Discuss all other relevant issues.

Whether or not Rose can be considered a foundling

The infant cannot be considered a foundling as defined by Sec. 3 of the Rule on Adoption7 since
there is no showing that the child was registered in the Civil Registrar as a foundling. Instead,
Lani, Ed’s unmarried sister to whom he passed on care of the infant, falsely claimed before the
Civil Registrar that she was the biological mother of the child. A birth certificate was issued to
Lani which erroneously identified her as the mother. If Lani had instead applied for and obtained
a foundling certificate, as she should have, she could have used it for all purposes in lieu of a
birth certificate, and she could have legally adopted the child and exercised parental authority
over her. She and Ed were required by Rule 28 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Act No. 37538 to report the case immediately after finding the child and commit the child to the
care of the Department of Social Welfare and Development or to an orphanage, but they did
not.

Whether or not the facts stated in a certificate of live birth can be disproved or rebutted

Sec. 44 of the Rules of Court9 provides that entries in official records, such as a certificate of live
birth, are prima facie evidence of the facts stated in them. Prima facie means at first face or at
first appearance; if something is a prima facie evidence, it is presumed true unless disproved or
rebutted. The facts in a certificate of live birth are not infallible; they are merely presumed true
until and unless disproved.

7 Section 3, e. Foundling refers to a deserted or abandoned infant or child whose parents, guardian or relatives are
unknown; or a child committed to an orphanage or charitable or similar institution with unknown facts of birth and
parentage and registered in the Civil Register as a “foundling.”
8 Rule 28. Persons Responsible to Report the Event. (1) Immediately after finding a foundling, the finder shall

report the case to the barangay captain of the place where the foundling was found, or to the police headquarters,
whichever is nearer or convenient to the finder. When the report is duly noted either by the barangay captain or by
the police authority, the finder shall commit the child to the care of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development or to a duly licensed orphanage or charitable or similar institution. Upon commitment, the finder shall
give to the charitable institution his copy of the Certificate of Foundling, if he had registered the foundling.
9
Section 44. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or
by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
Therefore, that Rose’s new birth certificate indicates Anita as the mother is not immutable proof
of Anita’s parental rights over Rose. If Rosario proves that Lani committed simulation of birth,
and that Lani had no parental rights to vest on Anita, the parental claim of Anita over Rose
would be undermined.