REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
Thirteenth Division
Janice Sombilon Reed,
for herself and in behalf of
her minor child, Seith
Cody Sombilon Reed,
and her legal spouse,
Cameron Keith Reed,
Petitioners-Appellees,
-versus-

CA G.R. No. CV-105604

(Sp. Proc. No. 14-

131491)
Office
of
the
Civil
Registrar for the City of
Manila, Office of the
Civil Registrar General
& Administrator of the
National
Statistics
Office, and John Doe, the
Unknown Biological Father
of Seith Cody Sombilon
Reed,
Respondents.
Republic of the
Philippines,
Oppositor-Appellant.
x------------------------------------x

APPELLEES BRIEF
PETITIONERS-APPELLEES, by counsel, in compliance
with this Honorable Courts Resolution dated October 26,
2015, respectfully state and depose THAT:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
1. Through this appeal, oppositor-appellant assails the
judgment dated July 15, 2015 rendered by the Honorable
Judge Liwliwa S. Hidalgo-Bucu of the Regional Trial Court,
1

National Judicial Regional Branch 34, City of Manila, finding

that the Petition for Cancellation or Correction of Erroneous
Entries in the Birth Certificate of Seith Cody Sombilon Reed is
valid and meritorious.
COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS
2. Petitioner Janice Sombilon Reed (hereafter referred as
petitioner) is married to Cameron Keith Reed, an American
national, as evidenced by their Certificate of Marriage 1. Her
husband is a member of the US Air Force and currently
assigned in New Mexico, United States. He is aware of the
filing of the instant Petition and he agrees with its contents
and the purpose of filing the same.
3. Petitioner is currently a full-time homemaker, taking care of
her two (2) children Seith Cody Sombilon Reed (hereafter
referred as Seith), aged five (5) and Christopher Sombilon
Reed (hereafter refered as Christopher), aged two (2), while
her husband is serving in the US Air Force.
4. Petitioner executed and filed the instant Petition 2 to correct
or cancel the erroneous entries in the Certificate of Live Birth
of her eldest son, Seith.
5. Prior to becoming a full-time homemaker, Petitioner worked
as an entertainer in Hachinohe, Japan from November 7,
2007 to May 8, 2008. She usually performed song and dance
numbers and sometimes, talked to the customers but she
did not go out with them.
6. It was in the middle of the petitioners employment as an
entertainer that she met Cameron sometime in 2007. They
fell deeply in love with each other and they lived like any
normal engaged couple. They often go out on dates and he
often sleeps at her place after his duty.
7. During the period of their dating, the petitioner got pregnant
with Seith. She was very happy and excited to be a future
mom and she immediately informed Cameron of her
pregnancy. He was happier and more excited than her. He
planned for their wedding so that Seith could have a
1 Please refer to Exhibit O and O-1 from the records of the case for the NSO certified
copy of the Certificate of Marriage between petitioner and Cameron Keith Reed.
2 Please refer to Exhibit A from the records of the case for the original and
authenticated copy of the Petition.

legitimate status. She never doubted that Cameron is Seiths

father. Not long after they got married after petitioner gave
birth to her son Seith, as shown in his Certificate of Live
Birth3.
8. Petitioner wanted to correct or cancel the erroneous entries
in her son's birth certificate pertaining to his paternity
because she discovered that her husband, Cameron Reed is
not her sons biological father.
9. Petitioner discovered this when Cameron was applying for a
U.S. Visa for Seith, for purposes of bringing him to the United
States. The US Consular Service Office in Frankfurt, Germany
recommended Cameron that he and Seith should undergo
paternity testing (DNA test) to be conducted by a US
government-accredited laboratory and the result must be
submitted with the supporting documents in Seiths
application. Unfortunately, the result4 of the test did not
match thus, Cameron is not the biological father of Seith.
10.
Sometime in 2007, while petitioner was working in
Japan as an entertainer, she had many suitors and among
them is Cameron Keith Reed, who later became her husband.
After a bitter quarrel with Cameron, she became so drunk
and unwittingly had casual sex with one of their guest in the
club. After a few days, she and Cameron resolved their
differences and became more intimately in love.
11.
After a few months, petitioner got pregnant with Seith.
They both thought and believed that the child is theirs. Her
contract of employment expired sometime in 2008 so she
went back to the Philippines.
12.
On July 9, 2008, she gave birth to a healthy boy in a
small maternity clinic in Manila and named him Seith Cody
Sombilon Reed. After giving birth, the attending physician,
Dr. Maria Fe Tizon, prepared the Certificate of Live Birth of
Seith Cody making her as the informant.
13.
Petitioner answered the questions of Dr. Tizon with all
honesty. She stated that the name of the child is Seith Cody
Sombilon Reed and that Cameron Keith Reed is his fathers
3 Please refer to Exhibit Q from the records of the case for Petitioners Certificate of
Live Birth.
4 Please refer to Exhibits P, P-1 and P-2 from the records of the case for the
authenticated copies of the DNA test and its interpretation

name; though they were not yet married. Cameron was the
only man in her life. They were exclusively dating and were
engaged to be married. They got married on February 17,
2009 at Valenzuela City, as evidenced by their Marriage
Contract5. It took six (6) months after the birth of Seith that
they got married because of the schedule of Cameron, who
was then in Japan. When Cameron learned about the DNA
result, he was just calm and relaxed as if nothing changed.
The petitioner has been honest to him and before they got
married, she told him everything about herself, her family
and her job, including the instance where she got so drunk
that she had casual sex with a man.
14.
Cameron
Keith
Reed
accepted
the
petitioner
wholeheartedly and his love for her is unconditional. He
considered her past as a learning experience and further told
her that the most important thing is their present and future.
15.
Despite the DNA result, his attitude towards Seith
stayed the same. His love and affection towards Seith never
deteriorated and his treatment of their son Seith is the same
even before the recommendation of the US Consular Office
for a paternity test. His love for her never weakened as he
accepted her past even before Seith was born. They have a
second child, Christopher Reed, whom she gave birth on June
2, 20116 at Bitburg, Germany because Cameron was
assigned there at that time.
16.
Cameron applied for a US Visa for Seith at Frankfurt,
Germany because he was transferred there in 2010.
Petitioner went with Cameron to Germany on July 2, 2010
and Seith followed only on October 22, 2011 because he has
no passport yet during that time.
17.
Seith was issued a passport in January 27, 2011. When
petitioner and Cameron went for a vacation in the Philippines
sometime in January 2011, they secured a passport for Seith
so that they can get a German visa for him. At that time, she
was already pregnant with Christopher and they were
planning to bring Seith with them to Germany so that they
can be together as a complete family. After the travel
5 Please refer to Exhibits O and O-1 from the records of the case for an NSO copy of
the Certificate of Marriage between Petitioner Janice Sombilon Reed and Cameron Keith
Reed.
6 Please refer to Exhibit O from the records of the case for a copy of the Certificate of
Birth of an American Citizen.

documents for Seith came about, they were able to bring

him with them to Germany and they stayed from October
2011 to March 20147.
18.
Cameron is a good person and a loving father. He loves
Seith as much as he loves their second child, his biological
child Christopher. Even after the result of the DNA test, his
love for Seith never changed. Petitioner filed the instant
Petition because she wants her entire family to be together
in one place. The profession of her husband demands that he
be in specific place at a specific time. As a mother and wife
to Cameron, she needs to do everything she can to make
their dream a reality. The US Consular Office assured them
that the immigration related documents of Seith would
eventually be granted provided that they submit the
corrected Certificate of Live Birth of Seith and other
corresponding documents.
19.
The Certificate of Live Birth of Seith was only registered
in March 18, 2009, while Seith was born in July 8, 2008
because at the time, she and Cameron were not yet married.
Cameron was still in Japan finishing his military tour of duty.
The delay is caused by the absence of Cameron. They were
advised that Cameron is needed to actually sign the
Certificate in the presence of the officiating government
official because Seith used the family name of Cameron.
Sometime in July 2010, she went to Germany to be with
Cameron. On November 21, 2010, Seith was baptized 8
according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church at the
Holy Cross Parish in Valenzuela City. Camerons military tour
of duty in Japan ended sometime in 2008 and he was reassigned in Frankfurt, Germany on August 2008.
20.
As Camerons wife, petitioner needs to accompany her
husband in Germany, leaving behind Seith in the custody of
her family in Valenzuela and being taken care of by her
sister, because he has no passport yet during that time.
Early this year, Cameron was re-assigned to the State of New
Mexico, USA. Although her family loves Seith it is still best for
Seith to grow in the love and care of his parents and his
brother. There is no other speedy remedy for Seith without
7 Please refer to Exhibits U and U-1 from the records of the case for the photographs
of the entire Reed family in Germany.
8 Please refer to Exhibit V from the records of the case for the Baptismal Certificate of
Seith Sombilon Reed.

compromising his best interest except the approval of the

instant Petition.
21.
In fact, on cross-examination, petitioner testified that
she is aware of the consequence of the instant Petition and
that the legal status of her minor child Seith Cody Sombilon
will be substantially affected. Her husband still supports her
child even though he is not the legal father. She is also
willing to work for her son. The treatment of Cameron to
Seith has not changed from the time that he discovered that
Seith Cody is actually not his son. Cameron has many plans
for her child because for him, Seith is his own child. He
wanted her son to finish his education. He wanted to adopt
her son thru the legal process, and that was what the
Embassy told them to be able to get the child. Her son has
lived with Cameron and his younger brother for four (4)
years in Germany.
22.
From the evidence presented and the opposition
interposed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
having been resolved, the Honorable Regional Trial Court
found that the petitioner has satisfactorily proven the
allegations of her Petition and that there exists reasonable
ground to cause the correction of certain entries in the
Certificate of Live Birth of her son, Seith Cody Sombilon
Reed, in order to set the records straight.
23.
As the Honorable Regional Trial Court held that the
instant Petition is a better remedy to serve the best interest
of the child. After all, the petition is not intended to declare
the minor child as illegitimate but merely to establish a
factual truth, which is sought to be corrected and entered in
his Certificate of Live Birth.
24.
Thus, the Honorable Court held in its decision dated July
15, 2015, to wit:
Accordingly, upon payment of the fees prescribed
by law and after this Decision shall have become
final, the City Civil Registrar of Manila is hereby
directed to cause the correction of entries in the
Certificate of Live Birth of SEITH CODY SOMBILON
REED as follows:
1. under entry number 1, the childs name be
changed from SEITH CODY SOMBILON REED
to SEITH CODY VALDUEZA SOMBILON;
6

2. under item numbers 13 to 17 pertaining to

father, the entries Cameron Keith Reed,
American, Catholic, Airforce and 21 be
cancelled and deleted, and substituted with
unknown on each entries;
3. the
entries
on
the
Affidavit
of
Acknowledgement on the dorsal portion be
cancelled
from
Cameron
Reed
to
unknown and the signature of Cameron
Keith Reed be deleted; and
4. the entries in Affidavit for Delayed
Registration of Birth, the fathers name
Cameron Keith Reed be cancelled and
changed to unknown.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the City
Civil Registrar of Manila, who shall make the
proper annotation thereof in the civil registry.
SO ORDERED.
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
Petitioners-appellees raises the following counter-arguments
to the assignment of errors raised by the oppositorappellant:
I.

THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY APPRECIATED

THE PETITION AS AN ACTION TO CORRECT
AND/OR CANCEL THE ERRONEOUS ENTRIES IN
PETITIONER SEITH CODY SOMBILON REEDS
CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE SINCE
THE PETITION MERELY SEEKS TO ESTABLISH
A STATUS, A RIGHT AND A PARTICULAR FACT.
DISCUSSIONS

I. THE INSTANT PETITION

IS
NOT
INTENDED
TO
IMPUGN THE LEGITIMACY

OF SEITH CODY SOMBILON

REED
BUT
ONLY
TO
CORRECT AND/OR CANCEL
THE ERRONEOUS ENTRIES
IN
THE
LATTERS
CERTIFICATE
OF
LIVE
BIRTH.
25.
A close perusal of the facts in the instant Petition would
reveal that petitioners Janice Sombilon Reed for herself and
in behalf of her minor child, SEITH CODY SOMBILON REED
intended only to correct the simulated, false and
baseless entries in the birth certificate of the minor
petitioner, whose paternity and filiation have been
mistakenly and erroneously caused to be recorded by
the Petitioners themselves, in the local civil registrar
of the City of Manila.
26.
The Office of the Solicitor General in its Appellants Brief
submitted that This Honorable Court erred in treating that
the instant petition is a mere action to correct and/or cancel
the erroneous entries in ones birth certificate 9.
27.
The appreciation of the Office of the Solicitor General of
the facts of the instant case is misplaced. The Petition is not
about impugning the legitimacy of SEITH CODY SOMBILLON
REED. The instant petition is merely to establish the status
or right of a party, or a particular fact.
28.
To answer the first assignment of error, let us take a
closer look in the Petition itself. The Petition only seeks for
the correction and/or cancellation of erroneous entries in one
of the Petitioners birth certificate. This is the remedy which
would allow the Petitioner SEITH CODY SOMBILON REED as
represented by her mother, Janice Sombilon Reed, to
establish a certain fact that his true biological father is
unknown. In Lee v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 118387,
October 11, 2001, it states, to wit:
It is precisely the province of a special
proceeding such as the one outlined under Rule
108 of the Revised Rules of Court to establish the
status or right of a party, or a particular fact. The
petitions filed by private respondents for the
correction of entries in the petitioners
9 Please refer to the oppositor-appellants brief, assignment of errors, page 2 item I.

records of birth were intended to establish

that for physical and/or biological reasons it
was impossible for Keh Shiok Cheng to have
conceived and given birth to the petitioners
as shown in their birth records. Contrary to
petitioners contention that the petitions before
the lower courts were actually actions to impugn
legitimacy, the prayer therein is not to declare
that petitioners are illegitimate children of Keh
Shiok Cheng, but to establish that the former are
not the latters children. There is nothing to
impugn as there is no blood relation at all between
Keh Shiok Cheng and petitioners. (Emphasis ours)
29.
It is clear and unequivocal from the wordings of the
Supreme Court that the instant petition is grounded on Rule
108 of the Rules of Court. It is not impugning the legitimacy
of the child SEITH as contended by the Office of the Solicitor
General (hereinafter OSG). Rather, the petition is to correct
an error that was made in the entry of the Certificate of Live
Birth. The correction and/or cancellation of the erroneous
entry in the Certificate of Live Birth is well within the grounds
established in Rule 108, Section 2 of the Rules of Court which
provides, to wit:
Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or
correction. Upon good and valid grounds, the
following entries in the civil register may be
cancelled or corrected: (a) births: (b) marriage;
(c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of
annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring
marriages
void
from
the
beginning;
(g)
legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments
of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election,
loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil interdiction;
(m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary
emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of
name.(emphasis ours)
30.
As pleaded in the Petition, the Honorable Regional Trial
Court correctly observed that the instant Petition is simply
aimed at establishing a particular fact, status and/or right.
Thus, the thrust of said Petition was to establish the factual
truth regarding the occurrence of certain events which
created or affected the status of the petitioner and/or
otherwise deprived of his rights.

31.
Stated differently, the issue regarding the impunity of
the petitioners legitimacy and filiation is misplaced. In the
instant Petition, the facts of the instant Petition would
establish that there was never a blood relationship
between the Petitioner and the name of the father as
recorded in his birth certificate.
32.
This theory is supported in the case of Lee v. Court of
Appeals G.R. No. 118387, October 11, 2001, where in the
Supreme Court held, to wit:
The petitions filed by private respondents for the
correction of entries in the petitioners records of
birth were intended to establish that for physical
and/or biological reasons it was impossible for Keh
Shiok Cheng to have conceived and given birth to
the petitioners as shown in their birth records.
Contrary to petitioners contention that the
petitions before the lower courts were actually
actions to impugn legitimacy, the prayer therein is
not to declare that petitioners are illegitimate
children of Keh Shiok Cheng, but to establish that
the former are not the latters children. There is
nothing to impugn as there is no blood
relation at all between Keh Shiok Cheng and
petitioners. (emphasis ours)
33.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court sitting en banc in the
leading case of Republic v. Valencia10, where the Supreme
Court affirmed the decision of Branch XI of the then Court of
First Instance (CFI) of Cebu City ordering the correction in the
nationality and civil status of petitioners minor children as
stated in their records of birth from Chinese to Filipino,
and legitimate to illegitimate, respectively. Although
recognizing that the changes or corrections sought to be
effected were not mere clerical errors of a harmless or
innocuous nature as in this instant Petition, the Court sitting
en banc, held therein that even substantial errors in a civil
register may be corrected and the true facts established
provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves
of the appropriate adversary proceeding. In the said case,
the Supreme Court also laid down the rule that, to wit:
that a proceeding for correction and/or
cancellation of entries in the civil register under
10 141 SCRA 462 (1986).

10

Rule 108 ceases to be summary in nature and

takes on the characteristics of an appropriate
adversary proceeding when all the procedural
requirements under Rule 108 are complied with.
34.
As contra-distinguished from the OSGs assertions that
petitioners should have filed the appropriate action in the
family court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over cases
brought under the Family Code, as provided under section
5(f) of Republic Act 8369, to wit:
Section 5. Jurisdiction of Family
Courts.The Family Courts shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear and decide
the following cases:
(f)
Summary
judicial
proceedings
brought
under
the
provisions
of
Executive Order No. 209, otherwise
known as the Family Code of the
Philippines
35.
The Supreme Court held Labayo-Rowe v. Republic G.R.
No. L-53417 December 8, 1988, that while it is true that in
special proceedings formal pleadings and a hearing may be
dispensed with, and the remedy may be granted upon mere
application or motion. But this is not always the case, as
when the statute expressly provides hence, a special
proceeding is not always summary, the Court stated, that
one only has to take a look at the procedure outlined in Rule
108 to see that what is contemplated therein is not a
summary proceeding per se, to wit:
Rule 108 requires publication of the petition
three (3) times, i.e., once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks (Sec. 4). The Rule also requires
inclusion as parties of all persons who claim any
interest which would be affected by the
cancellation or correction (Sec. 3).
The civil
registrar and any person in interest are also
required to file their opposition, if any, within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or
from the last date of publication of such notice
(Sec. 5). Last, but not the least, although the
court
may
make
orders
expediting
the
proceedings, it is after hearing that the court shall
11

either dismiss the petition or issue an order

granting the same (Sec. 7).
36.
The Court added: It is beyond doubt that the specific
matters covered by the preceding provisions include not only
status but also nationality. Therefore, the Ty Kong Tin
pronouncement that Article 412 does not contemplate
matters that may affect civil status, nationality or
citizenship is erroneous.
This interpretation has the
effect of isolating Article 412 from the rest of the articles in
Title XVI, Book I of the New Civil Code, in clear contravention
of the rule of statutory construction that a statute must
always be construed as a whole such that the particular
meaning to be attached to any word or phrase is ascertained
from the context and the nature of the subject treated.
37.
Republic Act No. 9048 which was passed by Congress
on February 8, 2001 substantially amended Article 412 of
the New Civil Code, to wit:
SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or
Typographical Error and Change of First Name or
Nickname.- No entry in a civil register shall be
changed or corrected without a judicial order,
except for clerical or typographical errors and
change of first name or nickname which can be
corrected or changed by the concerned city or
municipal civil registrar or consul general in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and its
implementing rules and regulations.
38.
In the above-mentioned case, the Supreme Court held
that the passage of RA 9048 effect is to remove from the
ambit of Rule 108 the correction or changing of such errors
in entries of the civil register. Hence, what is left for the
scope of operation of Rule 108 are substantial changes and
corrections in entries of the civil register.
39.
The Court further stressed that It may be very well
said that Republic Act No. 9048 is Congress response to the
confusion wrought by the failure to delineate as to what
exactly is that so-called summary procedure for changes or
corrections of a harmless or innocuous nature as
distinguished from that appropriate adversary proceeding
for changes or corrections of a substantial kind. For we must
admit that though we have constantly referred to an
appropriate adversary proceeding, we have failed to
12

categorically state just what that procedure is. Republic Act

No. 9048 now embodies that summary procedure while Rule
108 is that appropriate adversary proceeding.
40.
Precisely the rationale and the spirit of the enactment
in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048, otherwise known as
An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or
the Consul General to Correct a Clerical or Typographical
Error in an Entry and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in
the Civil Register Without Need of Judicial Order, has been
considered to lend legislative affirmation to the
judicial precedence that substantial corrections to the
civil status of persons recorded in the civil registry
may be effected through the filing of a petition under
Rule 108. If the theory of the Solicitor General is to be
received in its appreciation that an adversarial proceeding is
necessary, it would go against the very intention and spirit of
the law and the Rules of Court.
41.
Similarly, in Benitez-Badua v. Court of Appeals G.R. No.
105625 January 24, 1994, the Court held that Articles 164,
166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code were inapplicable. It
stated that:
A careful reading of the above articles will show
that they do not contemplate a situation, like in
the instant case, where a child is alleged not be
the child of nature or biological child of a certain
couple. Rather, these articles govern a situation
where a husband (or his heirs) denies as his own a
child of his wife. Thus, under Article 166, it is the
husband who can impugn the legitimacy of said
child by proving: (1) it was physically impossible
for him to have sexual intercourse, with his wife
within the first 120 days of the 300 days which
immediately preceded the birth of the child; (2)
that for biological or other scientific reasons, the
child could not have been his child; (3) that in
case of children conceived through artificial
insemination,
the
written
authorization
or
ratification by either parent was obtained through
mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation or undue
influence. Articles 170 and 171 reinforce this
reading as they speak of the prescriptive period
within which the husband or any of his heirs
should file the action impugning the legitimacy of
said child. Doubtless then, the appellate court did
13

not err when it refused to apply these articles to

the case at bench. For the case at bench is not
one where the heirs of the late Vicente are
contending that petitioner is not his child by
Isabel. Rather, their clear submission is that
petitioner was not born to Vicente and Isabel.
42.
In applying the above cited case in the instant Petition,
the contention of the OSG that the appropriate action should
have been brought under Articles 170 and 171 of the Family
Code is without merit. In the instant Petition, the Petitioner
himself seeks to correct or cancel the erroneous entries in
his birth certificate. There is NO CONTEST to speak of in the
first place as contrast to the cases cited in the Appellants
Brief.
43.
Considering the above-mentioned doctrines and cases
decided by the Supreme Court, the issue of whether or not
the Petition seeks to impugn the legitimacy and filiation of
the minor child SEITH CODY SOMBILON REED should be
resolve in favor of the Petitioners and as against the
OSG.
II.

THE TRIAL COURT

HAS
JURISDICTION
OVER
THE
SUBJECT MATTER
OF
THE
CASE
SINCE
THE
PETITION MERELY
SEEKS
TO
ESTABLISH
A
STATUS, A RIGHT
AND
A
PARTICULAR FACT.
44.
The Office of the Solicitor General further argued that
A close reading of the provisions on paternity and filiation
will show that these apply to instances wherein the father
impugns the legitimacy of his wifes child

45.
The issue of Paternity and Filiation, as raised in the
Appellants Brief by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
is not also in question and must not be touched upon as well.
Paternity and Filiation is the relationship between the parent

14

and the child. In the instant case, it is impossible to question

the issue of Filiation since it was already established that the
biological father of the child Seith is unknown. The entry in
the Cerificate of Live Birth of CAMERON as the father was
based on good faith that he was in fact the biological father
which, as the DNA results showed, is unfortunately not the
truth. As explained by the petitioner JANICE, she had no
recollection of the identity of the biological father of SEITH. It
is upon this reason that the Petitioners is moving for the
application of Rule 108 since there was an error committed
in the entry of the Certificate of Live Birth of Seith Cody
Reed.
46.
The Office of the Solicitor General also raised in its
Appellants Brief that in discovering that Cameron is not the
biological father of Seith, that he wants the said alleged fact
to be reflected in Seith's Certificate of Live Birth. In other
words, Cameron wants to establish that he is not naturally
filiated with his wife's child.
47.
The theory of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is
persuasive but is different from the true intention and reality
of the facts surrounding the case.
48.
The truth of the matter is that the very intention of
the Petition in correcting the entry in the Certificate
of Live Birth of Seith is to legally adopt the child
Seith. Stated in the petition is the fact that due to the
negative result of the DNA test conducted it shows that
CAMERON is not the biological father of SEITH. It is worthy of
note that despite the setback of the negative result of the
DNA, CAMERON's love, care and support for SEITH and
petitioner have not changed. He still considers his stepson
SEITH as his real and true son, and vows to legally adopt him
later at the proper time when all the legal impediments, such
as the erroneous entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of
Seith. Never was there an intention on the petitioner
CAMERON, even though he is not the biological father, to
leave his family specially SEITH whom he genuinely love and
cares for.
49.
The proper time that CAMERON is stating may not come
to fruition if the pending application for the change of entry
in the Certificate of Live Birth is left on paper than in reality.
It is a condition sine qua non that in order for CAMERON to
adopt SEITH, the necessity of correcting or cancelling the
erroneous entries in SEITH's Certificate of Live Birth is of
15

paramount importance. Furthermore, the correct entry is

essential for school, church, travel, immigration, and other
lawful purposes. Thereafter, CAMERON will file a petition for
adoption of SEITH, either in the Philippines or in the U.S.A.
50.
Worthy of note also is the fact that when petitioner
learned that she was pregnant, both she and CAMERON
believed in utmost good faith, bereft of any criminal or illegal
intent whatsoever, and with the honest belief that was their
common and natural child since they were already intimate
lovers during that time.
51.
Granting for the sake of argument that the legal basis
of the Office of the Solicitor General is correct, it will only
have an effect in this Jurisdiction and not in other Jurisdiction
such as in the United States of America hence, would be in
disadvantageous to the interest of the child SEITH.
52.
As of this time, CAMERON's regular tour of duty in
Germany has actually ended and is currently assigned at
New Mexico, USA. The entire REED family, including the
minor child SEITH is currently residing in the Philippines
waiting for the result of the Petition to properly change and
correct the erroneous entry in the Certificate of Live Birth of
SEITH for the reason that they cannot process the VISA of
Seith due to the DNA results. The inaction of moving towards
the procedure of Rule 108, the more time the entire REED
family is being inconvenienced and prejudiced, including the
minor child, SIETH.
53.
As a matter of fact, petitioners relied on Rule 108 of the
Revised Rules of Court as a special remedy or proceeding
allowed by the Supreme Court to remedy an INJUSTICE and
to promote NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY is in good
faith.
54.
Furthermore, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is NOT
INCOMPATIBLE with Art. 170 of the Family Code insofar as
available procedural remedies under the Rules of Court are
concerned. Otherwise, the Petitioner would be denied of his
basic rights to DUE PROCESS OF LAW, EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAW, and ACCESS TO THE
COURTS to seek a judicial remedy for an injustice he has
suffered and continues to suffer.
55.
If we follow the logic of the OSG, the petitioner is
now forced and indeed has no other fair and equitable
16

choice and option but to honor and recognize a

person who is not his biological father, per the initial
DNA test conducted for the purpose, the same to be
maintained by him as part of his genetic and
hereditary bloodline and the Petitioners very own
future, with all its adverse biological, economic and
sociological consequences.
56.
In the case of In Lee v. Court of Appeals G.R. No.
118387, October 11, 2001, the Petitioners contended that
resort to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court was
improper since private respondents sought to have the entry
for the name of petitioners mother changed from Keh Shiok
Cheng to Tiu Chuan who was a completely different
person. What private respondents therefore sought was not
merely a correction in name but a declaration that
petitioners were not born of Lee Tek Shengs legitimate wife,
Keh Shiok Cheng, but of his mistress, Tiu Chuan, in effect a
bastardization of petitioners. Petitioners thus label private
respondents suits before the lower courts as a collateral
attack against their legitimacy in the guise of a Rule 108
proceeding. The Supreme Court held, to wit:
It is precisely the province of a special
proceeding such as the one outlined under Rule
108 of the Revised Rules of Court to establish the
status or right of a party, or a particular fact. The
petitions filed by private respondents for the
correction of entries in the petitioners records of
birth were intended to establish that for physical
and/or biological reasons it was impossible for Keh
Shiok Cheng to have conceived and given birth to
the petitioners as shown in their birth records.
Contrary to petitioners contention that the
petitions before the lower courts were actually
actions to impugn legitimacy, the prayer therein is
not to declare that petitioners are illegitimate
children of Keh Shiok Cheng, but to establish that
the former are not the latters children. There is
nothing to impugn as there is no blood relation at
all between Keh Shiok Cheng and petitioners.
57.
In the instant Petition, the petitioners intended only to
correct or cancel the erroneous entries in the birth certificate
of SEITH CODY SOMBILON REED and to reflect the true and
correct entries in the said birth certificate. The prayer in the
instant petition is not to declare petitioner as illegitimate but
17

to establish a fact that an unknown person is the true

biological father of the Petitioner as what is stated in the
above-quoted decision of the Supreme Court.
58.
Considering the above-mentioned doctrines and cases
decided by the Supreme Court, the issue raised by the
Republic whether or not the Manila Regional Trial Court
branch 34 has no jurisdiction over the instant case since
jurisdiction rests with the Family Court of Manila should be
resolve in favor of the Petitioners and as against the
Republic.

II.A AT THE END OF THE

DAY, BOTH PARTIES (THE
REPUBLIC
AND
THE
PETITIONERS)
ARE
WORKING HAND IN HAND
FOR THE BEST INTEREST
OF SEITH.
59.
At the end of the day, all of the parties involved, the
Petitioner, the Mother of the minor child Seith, the entire
REED family and the Office of the Solicitor General are under
the same intention of protecting the rights of the minor child
SEITH. Both are working towards a more favorable outcome
for the status of the child SEITH. With this in mind, we ask
this Honorable Court to consider the totality of the petition
that in granting the prayer, it is for the benefit and best
interest of the child.
60.
Laws were enacted by the Legislature as well as the
Conventions of the Rights of the Child are placed with the
objective of pushing for the protection of the children.
Republic Act 9344 or The Juvenile Justice Welfare Act has
defined the term Best Interest of the Child referring to the
totality of the circumstances and conditions which are most
congenial to the survival, protection and feelings of security
of the child and most encouraging to the child's physical,
psychological and emotional development. It also means the

18

least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the

growth and development of the child.
61.
Further, Section 1 of Article 31 of the Convention of the
Rights of the Child provides that In all actions concerning
children, whether undertaken by public or private social
welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities
or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be
the primary consideration.
62.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines in several
instances involving minor children has applied the Best
Interest of the Child as a Primary Consideration in arriving at
the conclusion of cases.
63.
In the present case involving the minor child SEITH,
with regard to the application of the Best Interest of the
Child Policy, it is proper and advantageous to the minor child
and to the entire REED family as well if the cancellation of
the erroneous entry in the Certificate of Live Birth is made. It
would not only remove the inconvenience from the family
but it is also of paramount importance in order for them to
live the family life that they have always wanted. The one
that they envisioned wherein the entire family will be living
under one roof in the place where CAMERON has lived which
is in the United States of America.
64.
This case must not be viewed in the light of CAMERON's
filiation or paternity to SEITH. That is not the issue of the
case. As correctly ruled by this Honorable Court in its July 15,
2015 Decision, What the petitioners sought to be
corrected and/or cancelled are the erroneous entries
appearing on the Birth Certificate of the Minor Child.
It is not to declare the minor child an illegitimate but
to establish a fact that an unknown person is his true
biological father, based on the DNA test result".
65.
The importance of the correction of entry in the
Certificate of Live Birth of SEITH cannot be emphasized
enough. That is why, the correction is the first step for the
REED family to finally attain their dream and to continue
living in peace and for CAMERON to formally adopt SEITH
and be able to take his entire family to the USA.

19

66.
The Petitioners' are not saying that the Office of the
Solicitor General is not intended for the Best Interest of Seith
rather, the petition is a better remedy for the Best Interest of
Seith.
67.
Furthermore, It seems that the Office of the Solicitor
General misunderstood petitioner CAMERON's participation
in the petition. Petitioner Cameron only wanted the best for
his foster child SEITH, to legally adopt SEITH and bring the
entire Reed family in the United States of America. The
Office of the Solicitor General feels that the petitioners are
putting SEITH in a more disadvantageous position but that is
not the case.
68.
The opposition of the Office of the Solicitor General
although for the best interest of SEITH, is prolonging the
issue and allowing petitioner's wife and children be
separated with petitioner CAMERON because of the
misconception and mis-appreciation of the Office of the
Solicitor General to the facts in the Petition, in effect
prejudicial to the entire REED family.
69.
In the entirety of the Petition, law and jurisprudence of
the Supreme Court and sound principles of law indicate that
the Motion for Reconsideration of the Office of the Solicitor
General be dismissed. Otherwise, the Petitioners would be
denied of their basic human right to due process, equal
protection of the law, and access to the courts to seek a
judicial remedy for the injustice they suffered and will
continue to suffer if the Petition continues to be brushed
aside.
70.

Hence, this Appellees Brief.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court that the Decision dated July 15, 2015
by the Honorable Liwliwa S. Hidalgo-Bucu of the Manila
Regional Trial Court branch 34 be SUSTAINED and
AFFIRMED.
Other just, equitable and proper remedies and relief under
the premises are likewise prayed for.

20

Makati City for Manila, Philippines, June 13, 2016.

ATTY. APOLLO X.C.S. SANGALANG

Counsel for the Respondent-Appellant
IBP Lifetime No. 06541; IBP-PPLM Chapter
PTR No. MKT 5336403-1/26/2016
MCLE Compliance No. MCLE no. V-002-1060,
APRIL 20, 2016, PASIG CITY
Roll of Attorney No. 40222
5th Floor Builders Center
170 Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City 1229
Tel. 208-2606; Cel. 0917-821-6848
Email: apollo.sangalang@lawyer.com

EXPLANATION AND COPY FURNISH

(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)
The foregoing Appellees Brief will be filled personally to
this Honorable Court and served to the Office of the Solicitor
General, as counsel of the Republic of the Philippines, by
registered mail due to lack of office personnel to effect
personal service.
APOLLO X.C.S. SANGALANG
HON. JOHVIE M. VALENTON
Associate Solicitor
134 Amorsolo Street, Lagaspi Village

21

Makati City
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Counsel for the Oppositor-Appellant
134 Amorsolo Street, Lagaspi Village
Makati City

22