Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > March 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20717 March 18, 1966 CONSUELO CALICDAN BAYBAYAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20717. March 18, 1966.]

CONSUELO CALICDAN BAYBAYAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Solicitor General for the oppositor and Appellant.

Corleto Castro for the petitioner and appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL REGISTRY; SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATIONS AFFECTING THE STATUS AND CITIZENSHIP OF A PERSON. — The summary proceedings under Article 412 of the Civil Code only justify an order to correct innocuous or clerical errors such as misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding (Black v. Republic, 194 Phil., 848; Ansaldo v. Republic, 102 Phil., 1046; Tan Su v. Republic, 105 Phil., 578; Bentoto v. Republic, L-14978, May 23, 1961; De Castro v. Republic, L-17431, April 30, 1963; Lui Lin v. Republic, L-18213, Dec. 24, 1963). Substantial alterations, such as those affecting the status and citizenship of a person in the Civil Registry records, can not be ordered by the court unless first threshed out in an "appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented" (see Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court).


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Direct appeal on points of law from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in Civil Case No. 14219, the dispositive part of which is as follows (Rec. on Appeal, p. 12):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of the foregoing, decision is hereby rendered ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Bugallon, Pangasinan, to make the proper corrections in the certificate of live birth of Bartolome C. Baybayan, Jr., by crossing out the word ‘American’ under No. 8 in the certificate of live birth, and inserting therein in red ink the word ‘Filipino’, and by crossing also the word ‘Balungao’ under No. 10, birthplace and in lieu thereof, place ‘Urdaneta’, and to furnish a copy of said corrected certificate of live birth with the office of the Civil Registrar General, Bureau of Census and Statistics, Manila.

So ordered.

Given at Lingayen, Pangasinan, this 28th day of November, 1962.

(SGD.) ELOY B. BELLO

Judge"

The foregoing judgment was entered upon petition of Consuelo Calicdan Baybayan, filed in the court aforesaid on October 12, 1962, praying that the certificate of birth of her son, Bartolome Calicdan Baybayan, Jr., be corrected "to make it appear in said certificate that the place of birth of his father, Bartolome E. Baybayan, is Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and his citizenship is Filipino" (Rec. App. p. 3) on the ground that petitioner’s mother, Valentina Garcia, whom she had requested to register the birth of the boy in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Bugallon, Pangasinan, made a mistake in giving the birthplace of her husband as Balungao, Pangasinan, and his citizenship as American.

The court caused copies of the petition to be served on the Solicitor General, the Provincial Fiscal, and the Local Civil Registrar. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General and Provincial Fiscal, opposed the petition, claiming that the court had no jurisdiction to order such substantial changes as those prayed for in a summary proceeding under Article 412 of the Civil Code, as repeatedly decided by this Supreme Court.

Overruling the opposition, the court a quo declared that upon proof of mistake it did have power to order the changes sought, and did so. Wherefore, the State appealed.

The decision must be reversed. It has been the uniform jurisprudence of this Court, since Ty Kong Tin v. Republic (1945) 94 Phil. 321, that substantial alterations, such as those affecting the status and citizenship of a person in the Civil Registry records, can not be ordered by the court unless first threshed out in an "appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented" (see Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court), and that the summary proceedings under Article 412 of the Civil Code only justify an order to correct innocuous or clerical error, such as misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding (Black v. Republic, L-10869, Nov. 28, 1958; Ansaldo v. Republic, L-10226, Feb. 14, 1958; Tan Su v. Republic, L-12140, April 29, 1959; Bentoto v. Republic, L-14978, May 23, 1961; De Castro v. Republic, L-17431, April 30, 1963; Lui Lin v. Republic, L-18213, Dec. 24, 1963).

In Ansaldo v. Republic, supra, this Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For the information of the parties concerned, and for the guidance of the public in general, we may venture the opinion that the clerical errors which might be corrected through judicial sanction under Article 412 of the new Civil Code would be those harmless and innocuous changes, such as correction of a name that is clearly misspelled, occupation of the parents, etc.; but for changes involving the civil status of the parents, their nationality or citizenship, those are grave and important matters which may have a bearing and effect on the citizenship and nationality not only of said parents, but of the offsprings, and to seek said changes, it is necessary to file a proper suit wherein not only the State, but also all parties concerned and affected should be made parties defendants or respondents, and evidence should be submitted, either to support the allegations of the petition or complaint, or also to disprove the same so that any order or decision in the case may be made with due process of law and on the basis of facts proven. Then and only then may the change or changes be made in the entry in a civil register that will affect or even determine conclusively the citizenship or nationality of a person therein involved."cralaw virtua1aw library

The impropriety of the appealed judgment becomes all the more patent when it is considered that the party whose domicile and citizenship are sought to be altered, Bartolome E. Baybayan, does not appear to have been served with a copy of the petition, nor has he appeared in court to be heard and manifest his conformity or objections. Constitutional due process requires that he be given opportunity to present his side of the question, particularly because the petition itself manifests that the purpose of the correction of the entries sought is "to entitle said baby boy to a living allowance from his father, Bartolome E. Baybayan", i.e. to lay a foundation for future litigation against him.

The order appealed from is reversed, and the petition ordered dismissed. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22032 March 4, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMOLO DIGORO

  • G.R. No. L-25577 March 15, 1966 ONOFRE P. GUEVARA v. RAOUL M. INOCENTES

  • G.R. No. L-20717 March 18, 1966 CONSUELO CALICDAN BAYBAYAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22756 March 18, 1966 HONDA GIKEN KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA, ET AL. v. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25290 March 18, 1966 SOTERA VIRAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21332 March 18, 1966 LY GIOK HA, ET AL. v. EMILIO L. GALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19114 March 18, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO DE VILLA

  • G.R. No. L-21043 March 30, 1966 APOLONIO VILLANUEVA v. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22208 March 30, 1966 CONTINENTAL. INS. CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22415 March 30, 1966 FERNANDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS

  • G.R. No. L-12986 March 31, 1966 SPS. BERNABE AFRICA, ET AL. v. CALTEX (PHIL.) INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17482 March 31, 1966 GENOVEVA R. JABONETE, ET AL. v. JULIANA MONTEVERDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18368 March 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18507 March 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMUALDO RODRIGO

  • G.R. No. L-19601 March 31, 1966 CATALINA VDA. DE ROLDAN v. MARIANO ROLDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20306 March 31, 1966 IN RE: JESUS NG YAO SIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20407 March 31, 1966 PASTOR GAMBOA v. DIONISIO PALLARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20635 March 31, 1966 ETEPHA, A.G. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20801 March 31, 1966 PEPITO LAO ALFONSO, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-23609 March 31, 1966 THEODORE GRANT, JR. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21546 March 31, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO. v. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22744 March 31, 1966 LAM YIN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-15843 March 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORIL SAMPANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20928 March 31, 1966 NAWASA v. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COM.

  • G.R. No. L-21167 March 31, 1966 PRIMO GANITANO v. SEC. OF AGRI. AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21250 March 31, 1966 HONOFRE LEYSON, ET AL. v. RIZAL SURETY AND INS. CO.

  • G.R. No. L-21368 March 31, 1966 DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. EMILIO BENITEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21465 March 31, 1966 INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL-AGRI. WORKERS’ ORG. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21519 March 31, 1966 VICTOR EUSEBIO v. SOCIEDAD AGRICOLA DE BALARIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21663 March 31, 1966 MANILA CORDAGE CO. v. FERNANDO VIBAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21731 March 31, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LIM TIAN TENG SONS & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21905 March 31, 1966 EUFRONIO J. LLANTO v. MOHAMAD ALI DIMAPORO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22308 and L-22343-4 March 31, 1966 CHIEF OF THE PHIL. CONS., ET AL. v. JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22313 March 31, 1966 BARTOLOME DY POCO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.