RAMON, a married man, lived-in illicitly with Jen and she gave birth to a daughter named Ramona. The parents later offered Ramona for adoption to Jen’s sister, Maricel and her husband Noel. The Regional Trial Court approved the adoption and Ramona lived happily with her adopting and doting parents. A year later, Jen and Ramon sent a demand letter to Maricel and Noel demanding that they be paid the amount of P150,000 otherwise they will get back their child. When Maricel and Noel refused to pay the sum demanded, Jen took Ramona from her yaya and brought the child to the province. Maricel’s demand for the return of Ramona was refused with Jen saying that the Affidavit of Consent to the adoption was not fully explained to her and that she will only return the child if she is paid P150,000. Maricel and Noel filed a petition for habeas corpus. The court ordered the return of Ramona to Maricel and Noel not only because of the fact that the adoption order had already become final but also that in habeas corpus cases the court should determine what is the paramount welfare of the child. The rule that no mother shall be separated from a child under five years of age, will not apply where the court finds compelling reasons to rule otherwise. The court also ruled on the matter of the adoption that a decree of adoption has the effect, among others, of dissolving the authority vested in natural parents over the adopted child, in which case, parental authority over the adopted shall be exercised jointly by both spouses. The adopting parents have the right to the care and custody of the adopted child and exercise parental authority and responsibility over her. Time and again, the courts have ruled that there is no hard and fast rule of natural parents, or of the mother to have complete custody and authority over children five years old and below. It is always the welfare of the child that should be paramount. Even biological mothers can be deprived of custody of their minor children if it is found that leaving the child in the custody of her mother would not be for the best interest of the child or would be detrimental to the child’s growth and environment. In the situation mentioned above where the biological parents demanded P150,000 for the return of the child, it became apparent that the purpose of Jen and Ramon in grabbing custody of the child was solely to make money. It was not for the true desire to bring up the child in the best circumstances. This story is not uncommon. Time and again we hear of mothers who offer their children for adoption and latter come back to the adopting parents to harass them for money. The adopting parents should seek redress and help from the courts to put an end to this apparent extortion activity. And this was the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Minor Angelie Anne Cervantes, et al. versus Gina and Conrado Fajardo, G.R. No. 79955, Jan. 27, 1989). E-mail: joepallugna@yahoo.com