Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > December 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-45030 December 15, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DELIA P. MEDINA

204 Phil. 615:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-45030. December 15, 1982.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and JOSE ZOLETA, in his capacity as Acting Local Civil Registrar of Lucena City, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE DELIA P. MEDINA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch II, and JUANITO K. UY, Respondents.

The Solicitor General, for Petitioners.

Edmundo T. Zepeda for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Private respondent filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, presided by the respondent judge, for a change of entry in the birth certificate of his daughter with respect to his nationality, from "Chinese’’ to "Filipino," alleging that the mistake in the birth certificate was committed without his knowledge and content. A motion to dismiss was filed by petitioner for lack of jurisdiction of respondent court over the subject matter of the case, considering that substantial alteration such as those affecting the status and citizenship of a person in the Civil Registry Records can only be established in an appropriate adversary proceeding. In his opposition, private respondent claimed that what is prohibited under the law and jurisprudence is the correction of the record in the Civil Registry by a summary proceeding and, in the absence of a showing that prejudice would be caused to any party interested, a correction may be made under peculiar circumstances. The respondent court rendered judgment in favor of private respondent upon proper publication of the latter’s complaint for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Quezon province. Hence, this petition.

The Supreme Court held that the respondent court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case since the entry sought to be corrected is substantial and controversial affecting as it does the citizenship of private respondent and his daughter, which can only be established in an appropriate adversary proceeding and cannot be had in proceedings held under Article 412 of the New Civil Code involving correction of clerical errors.

Judgment reversed.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; CORRECTION OF ENTRY IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY; CANNOT BE HAD IN PROCEEDINGS HELD UNDER ARTICLE 412 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE; REASON. — Respondent court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case considering that the entry sought to be corrected is substantial and controversial affecting as it does the citizenship of private respondent and his daughter. Too well-settled to require citation of authorities is the doctrine that correction of entries in the Civil Registry records cannot be had in proceedings held under Article 412 of the New Civil Code. As early as 1954, in the case of Ty Kong Tin v. Republic (44 Phil. 321), the Honorable Supreme Court has consistently declared that Article 412 of the New Civil Code contemplates "mere corrections of mistakes that are clerical in nature and not those which may affect the civil status or the nationality or citizenship of the persons involved. If the purpose of the petition is merely to correct a clerical error, then the court may issue an order in order that the error or mistake may be corrected. If it refers to a substantial change, which affects the status or citizenship of a party, the matter should be treshed out in a proper action depending upon the nature of the issue involved. . . . This opinion is predicated upon the theory that the procedure contemplated in Article 412 is summary in nature which cannot cover cases involving controversial issues." The raison d’etre for the rule cannot be over emphasized. In the said case of Ty Kong Tin, this Court stated thus: "The books making up the civil registrar and all documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained, and if the entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed through a mere summary proceeding and not through an appropriate action wherein all the parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented, we would set wide open the door to fraud or other mischief, the consequence of which might be detrimental and far-reaching."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DY OLIVA CASE APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR. — In a subsequent ruling, i.e., Dy Oliva v. Republic (20 SCRA 1070), wherein the facts bear striking similarity with those of the instant case, this Court, speaking through the then Acting Chief Justice J.B.L. Reyes, reiterated what had been stated in the case of Ansaldo v. Republic (102 Phil. 1046): ‘’ ‘ . . . 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.’" (Emphasis supplied.)

3. ID.; CORRECTION OF ENTRY PERTAINING TO NATIONALITY OF PETITIONER IN GUEVARRA LIM CASE NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR. — The case of Francisco Guevarra Lim v. Republic (L-8932, May 31, 1957) cannot be controlling in the instant case considering that the correction of entry pertaining to the nationality of petitioner therein was a fact already established by the Deportation Board, hence, incontrovertible, unlike in the case at bar wherein the error sought to be corrected would have required the respondent court to decide a controversial issue.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; COMPREHENSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF ARTICLE 412 OF THE CIVIL CODE IN RELATION TO RULE 108 OF THE RULES OF COURT; CASE AT BAR. — In denying the Solicitor General’s motion to dismiss and directing the Local Civil Registrar of Lucena City to correct the entry on the birth certificate of private respondent’s daughter, Joyal Umali Uy, pertaining to plaintiff’s nationality, from "Chinese" to "Filipino," respondent Court herein elucidated as follows;." . . what the law forbids in cases of this nature is only a summary proceeding (Article 412, New Civil Code). But after the publication required under Rule 108, Sec. 4 of the New Rules of Court and after the defendant, the Solicitor General and all persons who might have been affected by this action were given a chance to oppose plaintiff’s cause, the proceeding undertaken in this case can barely be considered as summary in nature." Respondent judge should have looked closely into the case of Chua Wee, Et. Al. v. Republic (L-27731, April 21, 1971, 38 SCRA 409), wherein a comprehensive construction of Article 412 of the New Civil Code in relation to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court was made in the following manner: "From the time the New Civil Code took effect on August 30, 1950 until the promulgation of the Revised Rules of Court on January 1, 1964, there was no law nor rule of court prescribing the procedure to secure judicial authorization to effect the desired innocuous rectifications or alterations in the civil register pursuant to Article 412 of the New Civil Code. Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court now provides for such a procedure which should be limited solely to the implementation of Article 412, the substantive law on the matter of correcting entries in the civil register. Rule 108, like all the other provisions of the Rules of Court, was promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rulemaking authority under Sec. 13 of Art. VIII of the Constitution, which directs that such rules of court "shall not diminish or increase or modify substantive rights.’ If Rule 108 were to be extended beyond innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, so as to comprehend substantial and controversial alterations concerning citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, said Rule 108 would thereby become unconstitutional for it would be increasing or modifying substantive rights, which changes are not authorized under Article 412 of the New Civil Code. Following the long established doctrine on the matter, it is crystal clear that respondent should not have assumed jurisdiction of the case as the subject matter thereof is not for the correction of clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or citizenship, which is undisputedly substantial as well as controverted, and as such, can only be established in an appropriate adversary proceeding.

DE CASTRO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; CORRECTION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL REGISTRY; PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULE 108 OF THE RULES OF COURT IMPLEMENTING ARTICLE 412 OF THE CIVIL CODE CAN BE REGARDED AS APPROPRIATE ACTION FOR CORRECTION OF EVEN SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS. — I regret to have to dissent, with respect to the nature of the proceedings under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, implementing Article 412 of the Civil Code. In my humble opinion, it is that "proper suit" or "appropriate action" as mentioned in existing jurisprudence, starting with Ty Kong Tin, a 1954 case. Thus, in a decision I penned in the Court of Appeals, CA-G.R. No. 60592, January 9, 1979, I made the following observation: "All the foregoing notwithstanding, We are of the opinion that the proceedings that have already taken place can very well be regarded as that "proper suit’’ or appropriate "action" as mentioned in existing jurisprudence, starting with Ty Kong Tin v. Republic (1954) 94 Phil. 321, reiterated up to Baybayan v. Republic (1966) supra, for as provided in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, a new provision on the proceedings intended to implement Art. 412 of the Civil Code, promulgated obviously in the light of the then prevailing doctrine that proceedings under Art. 412 are summary in nature, can hardly be considered as merely summary. The New Rule 108 requires publication of the petition three times, once a week for three consecutive weeks (Sec. 4). The Rule also requires inclusion as parties of "all persons or 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. With all these procedural requirements, an action under Art. 412 of the Civil Code, in effect, has become a proceeding in rem, an action against the whole world-one which certainly cannot be described as "summary." We venture to say that the promulgation of this new provision of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court was intended precisely to outline the procedure of that "appropriate action" repeatedly held to be necessary for the correction of more than mere clerical errors, but even substantial ones, as could easily be gleaned from what may be judicially ordered cancelled or corrected after the proceedings. Thus, SEC. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction.-Upon good and valid ground, the following entries in the civil registrar may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of annulment of marriages; (f) judgment declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, lots or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.’ "The case cited by the Government in its opposition to the instant petition, Viray v. Republic, 35 SCRA 134 (1970), affords no unequivocal and direct ruling that not withstanding the promulgation of Rule 108 to implement Art. 412 of the New Civil Code the proceedings contemplated thereunder remain summary in nature. Significantly, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court was not even mentioned explicitly in the case abovecited, for the petition in said case, was filed on October 12, 1965, when Rule 108 has been effective only as of January 1, 1964, and the Supreme Court held the case is merely a change of name under Rule 103. We refuse to believe that despite the judicial proceedings as prescribed by Rule 108, all that the court is authorized to do is to order the correction of mere clerical errors, which are "harmless or innocuous." The Local Civil Registrar, upon proper petition, may easily be authorized to correct mere clerical errors without any risk that needs to be safeguarded by judicial overseeing. With the more or less elaborate proceedings outlined by Rule 108, the Court should now have the authority to correct more than mere clerical errors, as those mentioned in Sec. 2 thereof.


D E C I S I O N


MAKASIAR, J.:


On April 16, 1975, private respondent Juanito K. Uy filed a verified complaint with the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch II, presided by respondent Judge Delia P. Medina, praying "that the Local Civil Registrar and/or the Acting Local Civil Registrar of Lucena City be ordered to change the entry appearing under item No. 8 of Annex ‘A’ hereof" (birth certificate of his daughter), from "Chinese" to "Filipino" as his true, actual and present legal citizenship.

Private respondent alleged in his verified complaint that he has been a Filipino by naturalization since February 21, 1961; that his wife, Eleanor Umali, also a Filipino, gave birth their daughter Joyal Umali Uy on July 15, 1971 in the Calayan Women’s Hospital (now Medical Center — Lucena) in Lucena City, owned and operated by Dr. Emeterio Calayan, Jr., the Medical Director, and said delivery was assisted by Dra. Josefina V. Calayan; that in the preparation of Joyal Umali Uy’s birth certificate, without the knowledge and consent of private respondent, a mistake was committed with respect to the latter’s nationality as the father of Joyal Umali Uy; and that petitioner Zoleta, in his capacity as Acting Local Civil Registrar of Lucena, registered the said birth certificate despite the aforementioned error in the said entry.

On October 17, 1975, Petitioner, through the Solicitor General, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that respondent court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, arguing that "substantial alteraction, such as those affecting the status and citizenship of a person in the Civil Registry Records," can only be established in "an appropriate adversary proceeding as a remedy for the adjudication of real and justiciable controversies involving actual conflict of rights, the final determination of which depends upon the resolution of the issues of nationality, paternity, filiation or legitimacy of the marital status for which existing substantive and procedural laws as well as other rules of court amply provide."cralaw virtua1aw library

Subsequently, more specifically, on December 12, 1975, private respondent filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss alleging that "what is prohibited under the law and jurisprudence on the subject matter is the correction of the record in the Civil Registry by a summary proceeding. In the absence of a showing that prejudice would be caused to any party interested, a correction or amendment on a birth certificate under peculiar circumstances may be made. The plaintiff therefore should be given a chance to have his day in court, considering that the suit is not summary in nature."cralaw virtua1aw library

On March 2, 1976, respondent court issued two orders — deferring resolution on petitioner’s motion to dismiss and requiring the private respondent to make the proper publication of the complaint for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Quezon province.

After private respondent had adduced his evidence, respondent court on August 4, 1976, rendered the disputed decision, the dispositive portion of which follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Wherefore, finding the action filed by the plaintiff to be well-taken, the Court hereby denies the Motion to Dismiss dated October 17, 1975 filed by the Solicitor General and orders the Local Civil Registrar of Lucena City to correct the entry on the birth certificate of Joyal Umali Uy, pertaining to the nationality of the plaintiff Juanito K. Uy, from ‘Chinese’ to ‘Filipino.’"

Hence, this petition.

Petition is well-taken and the challenged decision should be reversed.

Respondent court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case considering that the entry sought to be corrected is substantial and controversial affecting as it does the citizenship of private respondent and his daughter. Too well-settled to require citation of authorities is the doctrine that correction of entries in the Civil Registry records cannot be had in proceedings held under Article 412 of the new Civil Code. As early as 1954, in the case of Ty Kong Tin v. Republic (44 Phil. 321), the Honorable Supreme Court has consistently declared that Article 412 of the new Civil Code contemplates "mere corrections of mistakes that are clerical in nature and not those which may affect the civil status or the nationality or citizenship of the persons involved. If the purpose of the petition is merely to correct a clerical error, then the court may issue an order in order that the error or mistake may be corrected. If it refers to a substantial change, which affects the status or citizenship of a party, the matter should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon the nature of the issue involved. . . . This opinion is predicated upon the theory that the procedure contemplated in Article 412 is summary in nature which cannot cover cases involving controversial issues."cralaw virtua1aw library

The raison d’etre for the rule cannot be overemphasized. In the said case of Ty Kong Tin, this Court stated thus: "The books making up the civil registrar and all documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained, and if the entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed through a mere summary proceeding and not through an appropriate action wherein all the parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented, we would set wide open the door to fraud or other mischief, the consequence of which right be detrimental and far-reaching."cralaw virtua1aw library

In a subsequent ruling, i.e., Dy Oliva v. Republic (20 SCRA 1070), wherein the facts bear striking similarity with those of the instant case, this Court, speaking through the then Acting Chief Justice J.B.L. Reyes, reiterated what had been stated in the case of Ansaldo v. Republic (102 Phil. 1046):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘. . . 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.’ (Emphasis supplied)

"With the data presently appearing in the civil registry, which, according to the certificate of live birth of the child, were furnished by Vicente S. Oliva (Exh. 1-A), Oscar Sia Oliva, as the son of Domingo Dy Oliva, a Chinese national and of Vicenta Yu Sia, another Chinese national, is a Chinese citizen. To alter the entries by changing the nationality of said parents, from ‘Chinese’ to ‘Filipino,’ would be to make it appear in that public record that the same Oscar Sia Oliva is the son of Filipino citizens and, therefore, is a citizen of the Philippines. It is not difficult to see that the changes asked for are neither harmless nor innocuous, as petitioner-appellees pretend them to be.

"Neither is the case exempted from the operation of the rule simply because the petitioning parents were able to present evidence tending to establish their (the parents’) Philippine citizenship. That fact would not be material in a summary proceeding for judicial correction of the civil registry, citizenship not being a proper subject or inquiry therein."cralaw virtua1aw library

The case of Francisco Guevarra Lim v. Republic (L-8932, May 31, 1957) cannot be controlling in the instant case considering that the correction of entry pertaining to the nationality of petitioner therein was a fact already established by the Deportation Board, hence, incontrovertible, unlike in the case at bar wherein the error sought to be corrected would have required the respondent court to decide a controversial issue.

In denying the Solicitor General’s motion to dismiss and directing the Local Civil Registrar of Lucena City to correct the entry on the birth certificate of private respondent’s daughter, Joyal Umali Uy, pertaining to plaintiff’s nationality, from "Chinese" to "Filipino," respondent Court herein elucidated as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . what the law forbids in cases of this nature is only a summary proceeding (Article 412, New Civil Code). But after the publication required under Rule 108, Sec. 4 of the New Rules of Court and after the defendant, the Solicitor General and all persons who might have been affected by this action were given a chance to oppose plaintiff’s cause, the proceeding undertaken in this case can barely be considered as summary in nature."cralaw virtua1aw library

Respondent Judge should have looked closely into the case of Chua Wee, Et. Al. v. Republic (L-27731, April 21, 1971, 38 SCRA 409), wherein a comprehensive construction of Article 412 of the new Civil Code in relation to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court was made in the following manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the time the New Civil Code took effect on August 30, 1950 until the promulgation of the Revised Rules of Court on January 1. 1964, there was no law nor rule of court prescribing the procedure to secure judicial authorization to effect the desired innocuous rectifications or alterations in the civil register pursuant to Article 412 of the New Civil Code. Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court now provides for such a procedure which should be limited solely to the implementation of Article 412, the substantive law on the matter of correcting entries in the civil register. Rule 108, like all the other provisions of the Rules of Court, was promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making authority under Sec. 13 of Art. VIII of the Constitution, which directs that such rules of court ‘shall not diminish or increase or modify substantive rights.’ If Rule 108 were to be extended beyond innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, so as to comprehend substantial and controversial alterations concerning citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, said Rule 108 would thereby become unconstitutional for it would be increasing or modifying substantive rights, which changes are not authorized under Article 412 of the New Civil Code.

x       x       x


"Again, in Lee v. Lee Hian Tiu and the Local Civil Registrar (L-24540, April 25, 1968, 23 SCRA 212), a petition similar to the instant case was filed on February 18, 1964 and, pursuant to the order of the trial court, was published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. The order likewise set the case for hearing and directed the local civil registrar and the other respondents or any person claiming any interest under the entries whose corrections were sought to file their opposition to the said petition. Mr. Justice Enrique M. Fernando, speaking for the Supreme Court, held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘It would be to overturn a long list of cases, impressive for their number and their unanimity, upholding the Ty Kong Tin decision, for this petition to prosper. To abandon such a doctrine which has in its favor adherence to a sound policy is unthinkable. Necessarily then, reliance on petitions of this character for the far-from-commendable purpose of changing one’s nationality should continue to be frowned upon and discouraged.

‘What was set forth in Chug Siu v. Civil Registrar of Manila bears reiteration. Thus: "One of the most emphatic affirmations against the utilization of this mode of procedure to obtain a judicial declaration of citizenship comes from the pen of former Chief Justice Bengzon in the above cited 1964 decision of Reyes v. Republic. Thus, ‘The case before us is not of first impression. We have repeatedly declared that in this jurisdiction, the remedy sought in the instant petition cannot be granted in the manner desired. While ostensibly, the action seeks a mere correction of an entry in the Civil Registry, in effect, it requests the judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship. Many such cases this Court has dismissed. We have clearly stated time and again, declaratory relief is not available for the purpose of obtaining a judicial declaration of citizenship (Lee v. Hian Tiu, Et Al., supra, p. 213).’"

The ruling in the aforecited case was reiterated in Republic v. Hon. Rafael dela Cruz, etc., Et. Al. (G.R. No. L-34079, Nov. 2, 1982); Mariano Wong, Et. Al. v. Republic (G.R. No. L-29376, July 30, 1982); Republic v. Caparosso (107 SCRA 67, 71); and Republic v. CFI of Davao (92 SCRA 632).

Following the long established doctrine on the matter, it is crystal clear that respondent should not have assumed jurisdiction of the case as the subject matter thereof is not for the correction of clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or citizenship, which is undisputably substantial as well as controverted, and as such, can only be established in an appropriate adversary proceeding.

ACCORDINGLY, THE QUESTIONED DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT COURT MUST BE, AS IT IS HEREBY, REVERSED. NO COSTS.

SO ORDERED.

Aquino, Concepcion, Guerrero and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent for the reasons given by Judge Medina which are quoted on page 6 of the decision. I want to point out that until now this Court has not indicated the procedure for making substantial changes or corrections in the Civil Registry. It keeps on saying that Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court allow only innocuous corrections. Well then, what is the procedure for non-innocuous corrections? The public is entitled to know.

DE CASTRO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I regret to have to dissent, with respect to the nature of the proceedings under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, implementing Article 412 of the Civil Code. In my humble opinion, it is that "proper suit" or "appropriate action" as mentioned in existing jurisprudence, starting with Ty Kong Tin, a 1954 case. Thus, in a decision I penned in the Court of Appeals, CA G.R. No. 60592, January 9, 1979, 1 I made the following observation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"All the foregoing notwithstanding, We are of the opinion that the proceedings that have already taken place can very well be regarded as that "proper suit" or "appropriate action" as mentioned in existing jurisprudence, starting with Ty Kong Tim v. Republic (1954) 44 Phil. 321, reiterated up to Baybayan v. Republic (1966) supra, for as provided in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, a new provision on the proceedings intended to implement Art. 412 of the Civil Code, promulgated obviously in the light of the then prevailing doctrine that proceedings under Art. 412 are summary in nature, can hardly be considered as merely summary. The new Rule 108 requires publication of the petition three times, once a week for three consecutive weeks (Sec. 4). The Rule also requires inclusion as parties of "all persons or 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. With all these procedural requirements, an action under Art. 412 of the Civil Code, in effect, has become a proceeding in rem, — an action against the whole world — one which certainly cannot be described as "summary." We venture to say that the promulgation of this new provision of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court was intended precisely to outline the procedure of that "appropriate action" repeatedly held to be necessary for the correction of more than mere clerical errors, but even substantial ones, as could easily be gleaned from what may be judicially ordered cancelled or corrected after the proceedings. Thus —

‘SEC. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. — Upon good and valid ground, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of annulment of marriage; (f) judgment 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.’

"The case cited by the Government in its opposition to the instant petition, Viray v. Republic, 35 SCRA 134 (1970), affords no unequivocal and direct ruling that notwithstanding the promulgation of Rule 108 to implement Art. 412 of the New Civil Code the proceedings contemplated thereunder remain summary in nature. Significantly, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court was not even mentioned explicitly in the case abovecited, for the petition in said case, was filed on October 12, 1965, when Rule 108 has been effective only as of January 1, 1964, and the Supreme Court held the case is merely a change of name under Rule 103. We refuse to believe that despite the judicial proceedings as prescribed by Rule 108, all that the court is authorized to do is to order the correction of mere clerical errors, which are "harmless or innocuous." The local Civil Registrar, upon proper petition, may easily be authorized to correct mere clerical errors without any risk that needs to be safeguarded by judicial overseeing. With the more or less elaborate proceedings outlined by Rule 108, the Court should now have the authority to correct more than mere clerical errors, as those mentioned in Sec. 2 thereof" (Decision, pp. 8-10)

The foregoing reflects my view to which, with due respect to my brethren, I would like to be permitted to adhere.

Endnotes:



DE CASTRO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. In the matter of the correction of the birth certificates of ROLANDO CABALTICA CHANG and NELLIA CABALTICA LEE, EUGENIA CABALTICA LEE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant, promulgated January 9, 1979.




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






December-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-27976 & L-27977 December 7, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMA AVENGOZA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 388

  • G.R. No. L-32782 December 7, 1982 - FLORENCIO MONREAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 395

  • G.R. No. L-58509 December 7, 1982 - IN RE: MARCELA RODELAS v. AMPARO ARANZA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-33006 December 8, 1982 - NICANOR NACAR v. CLAUDIO A. NISTAL

    204 Phil. 407

  • G.R. No. L-42626 December 8, 1982 - ANITA G. TORRES, ET AL. v. NORA S. YU, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 418

  • G.R. No. L-59480 December 8, 1982 - U. BAÑEZ ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY v. ABRA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-61468 December 8, 1982 - LORD M. MARAPAO v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA

    204 Phil. 448

  • G.R. No. L-29469 December 9, 1982 - PATRICIO PEBEAUCO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 452

  • G.R. No. L-30684 December 9, 1982 - YELLOW BALL FREIGHT LINES, INC. v. BELFAST SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.

    204 Phil. 456

  • Adm. Case No. L-2018 December 10, 1982 - UY CHUNG SENG, ET AL. v. JOSE C. MAGAT

    204 Phil. 461

  • G.R. No. L-34223 December 10, 1982 - HONORIO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 474

  • G.R. No. L-60946 December 10, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENEROSO QUINLOB, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 480

  • G.R. No. L-28446 December 13, 1982 - FRANCISCA H. RAFOLS, ET AL. v. MARCELO A. BARBA

    204 Phil. 494

  • G.R. No. L-30278 December 14, 1982 - JOSE MANAPAT v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 504

  • G.R. No. L-51635 December 14, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 511

  • Adm. Matter No. 2510-MJ December 15, 1982 - CONRADO F. SANTOS, ET AL. v. CONRADO DE GRACIA

    204 Phil. 531

  • G.R. No. L-27675 December 15, 1982 - ZOILA DUMANON, ET AL. v. BUTUAN CITY RURAL BANK, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 536

  • G.R. No. L-32461 December 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO ALFARO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 546

  • G.R. No. L-34669 December 15, 1982 - CITIZENS’ SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. RICARDO C. PUNO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 559

  • G.R. No. L-35489 December 15, 1982 - QUIRICO CONCEPCION v. PRESIDING JUDGE, CFI OF BULACAN

    204 Phil. 564

  • G.R. No. L-38786 December 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WELMO ROMERO

    204 Phil. 577

  • G.R. No. L-40242 December 15, 1982 - DOMINGA CONDE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 589

  • G.R. No. L-41263 December 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYETANO RODRIGUEZ

    204 Phil. 598

  • G.R. No. L-42366 December 15, 1982 - PAULINA MARGATE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 604

  • G.R. No. L-44377 December 15, 1982 - LEONOR VILLAMIN, ET AL. v. JUAN ECHIVERRI, JR., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 611

  • G.R. No. L-45030 December 15, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DELIA P. MEDINA

    204 Phil. 615

  • G.R. No. L-45798 December 15, 1982 - VENANCIO VILLANUEVA v. CFI OF ORIENTAL MINDORO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 629

  • G.R. No. L-48007 December 15, 1982 - PLUM FEDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND AGRARIAN WORKERS v. CARMELO C. NORIEL

    204 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-51607 December 15, 1982 - CESAR ACDA v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 646

  • G.R. No. L-52118 December 15, 1982 - PERFECTO FABULAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 654

  • G.R. No. L-54012 December 16, 1982 - JULITO ZAMORA, ET AL. v. CFI OF BULACAN (BALIUAG) BRANCH IV, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 658

  • G.R. No. L-54288 December 15, 1982 - ARTURO DE GUZMAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 663

  • G.R. No. L-54587 December 15, 1982 - MERVILLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ROSARIO G. DIMAYUGA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 675

  • G.R. No. L-54597 December 15, 1982 - FELICIDAD ANZALDO v. JACOBO C. CLAVE

    204 Phil. 679

  • G.R. No. L-56405 December 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCADIO FIEL, JR., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 685

  • G.R. No. L-56763 December 15, 1982 - JOHN SY, ET AL. v. TYSON ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 693

  • G.R. No. L-61419 December 15, 1982 - NEVILLE Y. LAMIS ENTS., ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO SILAPAN

    204 Phil. 701

  • G.R. No. L-61478 December 15, 1982 - LUNINGNING B. ALVAREZ v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 704

  • G.R. No. L-62607 December 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASTUERA

    204 Phil. 706

  • G.R. No. L-29038 December 27, 1982 - ALFREDO C. PANLILIO, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 713

  • G.R. No. L-31628 December 27, 1982 - MUNICIPALITY OF CARCAR v. CFI OF CEBU, BARILI BRANCH, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 719

  • G.R. No. L-31885 December 27, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CFI OF BAGUIO-BENGUET, BRANCH III, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 724

  • G.R. No. L-34486 December 27, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO HERIDA

    204 Phil. 729

  • G.R. No. L-38831 December 27, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARVIN MILLORA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 735

  • G.R. No. L-43720 December 27, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JORGE GOLFO

    204 Phil. 742

  • G.R. No. L-56858 December 27, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AKMAD MARONG, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 749

  • G.R. No. L-58087 December 27, 1982 - DANILO IBARRA SISON, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 757

  • G.R. Nos. L-59447 & L-60188 December 27, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 768

  • G.R. No. L-59647 December 27, 1982 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 776

  • G.R. No. L-60859 December 27, 1982 - GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE & RADIO CORPORATION, ET AL. v. GEORGE BARRIOS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 781

  • G.R. No. L-61545 December 27, 1982 - JOSE RODRIGUEZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 784

  • G.R. No. L-51299 December 29, 1982 - CARMENCITA G. VISPERAS v. AMADO GAT. INCIONG, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 797

  • G.R. No. L-57957 December 29, 1982 - ZENITH INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 805

  • G.R. No. L-61628 December 29, 1982 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 813

  • Adm. Case No. 1409 December 30, 1982.

    ADELINA C. ADRIAS v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR.

    204 Phil. 826

  • G.R. No. L-52502 December 30, 1982 - MANUEL DISINI v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    204 Phil. 831