November 1958 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1958 > November 1958 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-10869 November 28, 1958 - IN RE: ANDREW BALCK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
104 Phil 848:
104 Phil 848:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-10869. November 28, 1958.]
In re: Petition to correct mistake in the Record of the Civil Registrar of Manila, relative to the citizenship of MARIAN KATHLEEN BLACK; ANDREW BLACK, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.
Vicente M. Noche for Appellants.
Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Assistant Solicitor General Florencio Villamor for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL REGISTRY; CLERICAL ERRORS. — Clerical error is "one that is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding (Maxwell v. Hammand, 55 Phil. 519). It is "an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing" (In re: Stewart, 48 N.Y.S. 957, 966, 24 App. Div. 201, quoted in Words and Phrases, Vol. 7, p. 472).
2. ID.; ID.; CITIZENSHIP. — When the desired correction involve the matter of citizenship, neither alleged to have been due to the error of the employee or clerk in the Office of the Civil Registrar in copying or transcribing nor visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, the same should be threshed out in an appropriate action and not in proceedings to correct mistakes under Art. 412 of the Civil Code.
2. ID.; ID.; CITIZENSHIP. — When the desired correction involve the matter of citizenship, neither alleged to have been due to the error of the employee or clerk in the Office of the Civil Registrar in copying or transcribing nor visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, the same should be threshed out in an appropriate action and not in proceedings to correct mistakes under Art. 412 of the Civil Code.
D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
The petitioners filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition to correct the birth certificate of their daughter, Marian Kathleen Black, who was born on April 15, 1955 in the City of Manila, by changing the latter’s citizenship appearing therein from "Canadian" to "American." The Solicitor General filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the correction sought in the petition will substantially affect the child’s citizenship which is still controversial and therefore cannot be allowed under Article 412 of the new Civil Code which is applicable only to clerical mistakes. As the court granted the motion to dismiss, the petitioners have appealed.
Clerical error is "one that is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding" (Maxwell v. Hammond, 55 Phil. 519). It is "an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing" (In re: Stewart, 48" N.Y.S. 957, 966, 24 App. Div. 201, quoted in Words and Phrases, Vol. 7, p. 472).
In this case the act of writing the word "Canadian" in the birth certificates is not alleged to have been due to the error of the employee or clerk in the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila who made the entry. Neither is the error visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding. Upon the other hand, the desired correction involves the controversial matter of citizenship which should be threshed out in an appropriate action, and certainly not in proceedings to correct mistakes under Article 412 of the Civil Code.
The order appealed from is therefore affirmed with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Clerical error is "one that is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding" (Maxwell v. Hammond, 55 Phil. 519). It is "an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing" (In re: Stewart, 48" N.Y.S. 957, 966, 24 App. Div. 201, quoted in Words and Phrases, Vol. 7, p. 472).
In this case the act of writing the word "Canadian" in the birth certificates is not alleged to have been due to the error of the employee or clerk in the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila who made the entry. Neither is the error visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding. Upon the other hand, the desired correction involves the controversial matter of citizenship which should be threshed out in an appropriate action, and certainly not in proceedings to correct mistakes under Article 412 of the Civil Code.
The order appealed from is therefore affirmed with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.
