ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
IN
RE: PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF
NAME
G. R. No. L-28520 January 17, 1985 -versus-REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RELOVA, J.: Direct appeal on points of law from a Decision of the then Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 70128, the dispositive portion of which is as follows:
Petitioner Saturnina V. Vda. de Castro in her petition alleged that her son Ramon V. Castro was born on August 31, 1946 at St. Luke's Hospital; that said Ramon V. Castro is also known as Ramon George Castro, Jr. in the baptismal certificate and George F. Castro in the birth certificate; that Ramon V. Castro is her child's true and lawful name since childhood, affixing said name in all transactions both in private and official documents; and that confusion arose when, in choosing the name to be given to Ramon V. Castro upon his birth, three names were proposed, namely: Ramon V. Castro, Ramon George Castro, Jr. and George F. Castro, the third name being erroneously recorded in the Civil Registry of Manila.cralaw:red The Court caused copies of the petition to be served on the Solicitor General and the Civil Registrar of Manila. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, opposed the petition claiming that "correction of entries in the civil registry contemplated under Article 412 of the Civil Code refers to clerical mistakes [Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic, L-5609, February 5, 1954]. A clerical mistake is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing [Black vs. Republic, L-10869, November 28,1958; Beduya vs. Republic, No. L-17639, May 29, 1964]. Errors in birth certificates which are not clerical in nature, cannot be corrected by means of a petition for correction [Lui Lin vs. Republic, No. L-18213, December 24, 1963)." (p. 10, Record on Appeal] The Court a quo declared that upon proof of mistake, it did have the power to order the change sought, and did so. Wherefore, the State appealed.cralaw:red The decision must be reversed. It has been the consistent ruling of this Court since the Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic, 94 Phil. 321, "that substantial alterations, such as those affecting the status and citizenship of a person in the Civil Registry Records, cannot 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 errors, such as misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding" [Baybayan vs. Republic of the Philippines, 16 SCRA 403].cralaw:red In Lui Lin vs. Nuño 9 SCRA 707, this Court said:
ACCORDINGLY, the Decision appealed from is reversed. Costs against petitioner-appellee.cralaw:red SO ORDERED.cralaw:red Melencio-Herrera,
Plana, and De la Fuente, JJ.,
concur.
|
|