CATALAN, Caleb, G.

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS – 1B

11 November, 2019

Problem #1

a) What are the relevant laws on the matter?

The facts presented deal with the adoption of Rose Gardo by Anita Koh, and the
claim of Rosario Reyno as the biological mother of Rose. This set of facts is covered by
RA 8552, or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1992, as well as its Implementing Rules and
Regulations.
Rose was found by Ed Gardo in 2000, and was given to his unmarried sister Lani
that same year. Lani registered Rose as her own biological child. However, the IRR of
the Domestic Adoption dictates that Rose should have been registered as a “foundling”
following the IRR of the Domestic Adoption Act and the subsequent SC Rule on
Adoption,1 as the facts of her birth and parentage were unknown.2
The crux of the facts lies in the circumstances surrounding Rose’s birth, which
constitute a simulated birth as defined by section 3, paragraph (j) of RA 8552.3
Simulation of birth is additionally penalized under RA 8552,4 and constitutes a felony
under Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code.
While simulation of birth is penalized, RA 8552 also provides for rectification of the
said act, provided that it falls within the criteria listed in Section 22 of the same statute.
The rectification period only covers those which took place prior to the effectivity of the
Act in 1998.
According to the facts presented, after Rose was listed in the Office of the Civil
Registrar as the biological child of Lani. The name listed was “Rose Lailani Contreras
Gardo,” following the last name of Lani, who was unmarried at the time. Rose,
therefore, is an illegitimate child, as she was born outside of a valid marriage.5 Her last
name follows that of her mother’s, pursuant to Article 176 of the Family Code.6
Rose was then given up at 3 years of age to the Sto. Nino Child Caring Agency. She
was then adopted by Anita Koh. The process of adoption is governed by RA 8552 and

1
A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC. Sec. 3, par (e).
2
IRR, RA 8552, Art II, Sec. 3, par. 7. “Foundling” shall refer to a deserted or abandoned infant or child… with
unknown facts of birth and parentage and registered in the Civil Register as a “foundling.”
3
RA 8552, Art. I, Sec. 3, par. j. “Simulation of birth” is the tampering of the civil registry making it appear in the
birth records that a certain child was born to a person who is not his/her biological mother, causing such a child to
lose his/her true identity and status.
4
Id, at Art. VII, 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 prison mayor in its medium period and a fine not exceeding Fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00).
5
Family Code. Article 165. Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise
provided in this Code.
6
Id. Article 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their
mother, and be entitled to support in conformity with this Code […].
RA 9523, the latter amending sections 2(c)(iii), 3(b), (e) and 8(a) of the former.7 These
provisions include the criteria on the eligibility of Anita to adopt, as well as the procedure
to be followed in the adoption of Rose. Following the decree of adoption being granted,
Rose’s name was changed to “Rose Ann Koh” on her birth certificate in accordance with
Sec 14-15, Art. IV of RA 8552.

b) Argue in favor of the adoptee’s record 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.

Rosario’s claim of being the biological mother of Rose must be appreciated with the
fact of the child’s simulation of birth by Lani Gardo. The record would reflect the history
of the child as supposedly being Lani’s biological offspring. As it is clear that Lani was
not the biological mother of Rose upon the late registration at the OCR, Lani is
criminally liable for this false representation. Neither can she rectify the same, since the
simulation of birth occurred in 2000, excluding her from the amnesty provided in Sec. 22
of RA 8552.
Lani’s parental authority is based on Rose’s erroneous birth certificate, which in
actuality is erroneous, and cannot be a source of rights. There can no conferring of
parental authority from Lani to Anita during the adoption proceedings because parental
authority did not vest in Lani by fact of the simulated birth. Thus, the effects of adoption
contemplated in Sec 16, Art. V of RA 85528 and Article 189(2) of the Family Code9
cannot apply in the adoption of Rose by Anita Yu as regards to the legal ties that were
supposedly severed.
The biological mother of Lani has superior rights over Anita because the transfer of
Lani’s supposed parental authority is invalid. Lani is neither the biological mother of
Rose, and neither did parental authority vest in her by virtue of the falsified birth
certificate. The court has also held in Benitez-Badua v Court of Appeals that the mere
registration of a child in his or her birth certificate as the child of the supposed parents is
not a valid adoption, and does not confer upon the child the status of an adopted child
and the legal rights of such child.10 While it remains to be proven that Rosario’s claims
are admissible, it is clear that the simulation of birth invalidates any claim that the
adopter may have over the biological mother, as no valid adoption occurred.

c) Discuss all other relevant issues

7
RA 9523. Section 11.
8
RA 8552. Art V, Sec. 16. Parental Authority.- Except in cases where the biological parents is the same as the
spouse of the adopter, all legal ties between the biological parent(s) and the adoptee shall be severed and the
same shall then be vested on the adopter.
9
Family Code. Par. 2, Art. 189. The parental authority of parents by nature over the adopted shall terminate and
be vested in the adopters, except that if the adopter is the spouse of the parent by nature of the adopted, parental
authority over the adopted shall be exercised jointly by both spouses;
10
Benitez-Badua v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105625, January 24, 1994.
Rectification of simulated birth

While the period of amnesty given in the Domestic Adoption Act has already
lapsed, new laws passed now extend the period in which mothers may file to rectify the
simulation of birth without any criminal penalty. RA 1122211 grants amnesty to persons
who simulated the birth of a child prior to its effectivity, provided that it was done in the
child’s best interests, as well as filing the petition within 10 years of the effectivity date of
the RA. This is in line with state policy to encourage persons to amend birth registries
that contain false information.

Effects of adoption on the adoptee’s first and middle name

As stated in the facts of the case, a valid adoption decree was issued, stating
that Rose’s birth certificate to be changed to the name “Rose Ann Koh.” This follows
Sections 13-14 of the Domestic Adoption Act,12 which list the procedures for the
registration of the new birth certificate. What is anomalous here, however, is that after
the decree was issued, Anita began to fill out legal and school forms for her daughter as
“Mary Rose Yu Koh.”
While the decree of adoption stated the name by which the child should be
known, it does not follow that Anita can change Rose’s name another time after the
valid adoption decree has been issued. RA 8552 gives Anita the right to change Rose’s
first name, but she cannot avail of the same after the valid adoption decree has been
issued. Instead, she would have to comply with Rule 103 of the Rules of Court
regarding an additional change of name for her daughter.
On the matter of the addition of “Yu” to Rose’s name, it must be noted that this
occurred after the adoption decree was issued, and must follow proper procedure if
Anita desires to add her middle name to her adopted daughter’s.

On Rosario’s claims

Rosario claims to be the biological mother of Rose, and bases her position on the
allegation that Rose was kidnapped from her after she gave birth at a Paanakan in
Quiapo. Rosario’s claim essentially invalidates the position of Lani being the person
exercising parental authority over Rose, as parental authority cannot arise out of a
fraudulent birth certificate. While caring for an abandoned baby is definitely within the
best interests of the child, Lani erred in listing herself as the biological mother of Rose
upon late registration at the OCR.
The Domestic Adoption act requires the consent of the biological parents of
legitimate children or the consent of the mother of illegitimate children.13 Despite the

11
An Act Allowing the Rectification of Simulated Birth Records and Prescribing Administrative Adoption
Proceedings for the Purpose (2018).
12
Id.
13
RA 9522, at Art. IV, sec. 9.
facts not giving any indication of Rosario being married, Rosario would still exercise
parental authority over Rose by virtue of being the biological mother. However, the law
also dispenses with the consent if there is abandonment by the parents. While
jurisprudence dictates that abandonment must show a settled purpose to forgo all
parental authorities and relinquish all claims to the child,14 the alleged kidnapping, if
proven, can be used to indicate that it was it was never Rosario’s intention to abandon
her child. The question of who really has a biological claim to the abandoned baby Rose
will require careful reexamination of the courts in a remanded proceeding.

14
Cang v Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 105308, September 25, 1998.