September 1969 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > September 1969 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-27159 September 17, 1969 - IN RE: TERESITA CHAN, ET AL. v. LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-27159. September 17, 1969.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE CORRECTION OF CERTAIN ENTRIES IN THE BIRTH RECORDS OF THE MINORS TERESITA CHAN, ALICIA CHAN, VIRGINIA CHAN and VICENTE CHAN. CHAN CHIN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, Respondent-Appellant.
Sipin & Santiago for Petitioner-Appellee.
Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra and Solicitor Pio P. Cordero for Respondent-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL LAW; LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES; SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES NOT ALLOWED; INSTANT CASE. — In the Records of Births of the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, Teresita’s family name is "Uy", her father is "Chi Uy" and her mother "Juanita Go," whose birthplace is "Amoy, Chinkang." These entries are sought to be corrected as follows: (1) "Teresita Chan," in lieu of "Teresita Uy" ; (2) "Chan Chin," in lieu of "Chi Uy" ; (3) "Juanita Co," in lieu of "Juanita Go" and (4) "Manila," in lieu of "Amoy, Chinkang." As to Alicia, the Record shows that she is "Alicia Ching," and her parents are "Chang Ching" and "Juanita Go," both born in "Emoy, China." The corrections sought to be made are (1) "Alicia Chan," in lieu of "Alicia Ching" ; (2) "Chan Chin" in lieu of "Chang Ching" ; (3) "Juanita Co," in lieu of "Juanita Go," and (4) "Amoy" instead of "Emoy." As to Virginia, the Record shows that her full name is "Virginia Chan," and her father is "Chin Chan," born in "Manila." The corrections sought are (1) "Chan Chin," in lieu of "Chin Chan" and (2) "Amoy, China," in lieu of "Manila." HELD: Far from being "harmless" or "innocuous" the changes sought are "substantial" in nature and should not be allowed. In the case of Teresita, it affects not only her name, but, also, the identity of her parents and her status. Most certainly, Chi Uy is presumably a person different from, Chan Chin, and "Juanita Co" born in "Amoy, Chinkang" is not apparently the same "Juanita Go," born in "Manila." The same observations apply to the case of Alicia.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SUMMARY PROCEEDING UNDER ARTICLE 412 OF THE CIVIL CODE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN INSTANT CASE. — Where the entries in the Record of Births reflect correctly the data furnished by petitioner’s wife, and the alleged mistake in giving such data does not appear on such Record, the entries therein cannot be corrected in the summary proceeding under Article 412 of the Civil Code.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO GIVE TRUE NAME IN THE TITLE OR BODY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED; COURT ACQUIRES NO JURISDICTION OVER PROCEEDINGS. — In the case at bar, the names of "Teresita Uy" and "Alicia Ching" do not appear, either in the title or in the body of the notice published in connection with the petition for correction of certain entries in their Record of Births. Considering that publication of said notice is essential to the Jurisdiction of the court in proceedings of this nature; that the purpose of said publications is to bind the whole world; and that, for such publication to be effective, it must give "the true name sought to be changed," such failure is a violation of the strict requirements of publication; it is fatal; and the court did not acquire jurisdiction to hear the case.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SUMMARY PROCEEDING UNDER ARTICLE 412 OF THE CIVIL CODE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN INSTANT CASE. — Where the entries in the Record of Births reflect correctly the data furnished by petitioner’s wife, and the alleged mistake in giving such data does not appear on such Record, the entries therein cannot be corrected in the summary proceeding under Article 412 of the Civil Code.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO GIVE TRUE NAME IN THE TITLE OR BODY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED; COURT ACQUIRES NO JURISDICTION OVER PROCEEDINGS. — In the case at bar, the names of "Teresita Uy" and "Alicia Ching" do not appear, either in the title or in the body of the notice published in connection with the petition for correction of certain entries in their Record of Births. Considering that publication of said notice is essential to the Jurisdiction of the court in proceedings of this nature; that the purpose of said publications is to bind the whole world; and that, for such publication to be effective, it must give "the true name sought to be changed," such failure is a violation of the strict requirements of publication; it is fatal; and the court did not acquire jurisdiction to hear the case.
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, J.:
Appeal by the Government from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila granting the petition of Chan Chin for the correction of certain entries in the Record of Births of the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila relative to four (4) of the twelve (12) alleged "children" of said Petitioner-Appellee.
The first of the "children" in question bears the name of Teresita. According to said Record, her family name is "Uy", her father is "Chi Uy" and her mother "Juanita Go", whose birthplace is "Amoy, Chinkang." These entries are sought to be corrected as follows: (1) "Teresita Chan", in lieu of "Teresita Uy" ; (2) "Chan Chin", (appellee herein) in lieu of "Chi Uy" ; (3) "Juanita Co", in lieu of "Juanita Go" ; and (4) "Manila," in lieu of "Amoy, Chinkang."
The second child is Alicia. According to said Record, she is "Alicia Ching", and her parents are "Chang Ching", and "Juanita Go", both born in "Emoy, China." The corrections sought to be made are: (1) "Alicia Chan", in lieu of "Alicia Ching" ; (2) "Chan Chin", in lieu of "Chang Ching" ; (3) "Juanita Co", in lieu of "Juanita Go" ; and (4) "Amoy" instead of "Emoy."
The third is Virginia. According to said Record, her full name is "Virginia Chan", and her father is "Chin Chan", born in "Manila." The corrections sought are: (1) "Chan Chin", in lieu of "Chin Chan" and (2) "Amoy, China", in lieu of "Manila."
The fourth and last is Vicente. According to said Record, his full name is "Vicente Chan," and his father is "Chan Ching." Petitioner maintains that "Chan Ching" should read "Chan Chin."
The appealed order authorizing these amendments should be reversed.
1. The relief sought by petitioner is predicated upon Article 412 of our Civil Code, which provides that: "No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without a judicial order." In Baybayan v. Republic, 1 we stressed that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"It has been the uniform jurisprudence of this Court, since Ty Kong Tin v. Republic (1954), 94 Phil. 321, that substantial alteration, 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 errors, such as misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding (Black v. Republic, L-10869, November 28, 1958; Ansaldo v. Republic, L-10226, February 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, December 24, 1963)." 2
Far from being "harmless" or "innocuous’ the changes sanctioned by the lower court are or may be "substantial" in nature. In the case of Teresita, it affects not only her name, but, also, the identity of her parents and her status. Most certainly, Chi Uy is presumably a person different from Chan Chin, and "Juanita Co", born in "Amoy, Chinkang" is not apparently the same "Juanita Go", born in "Manila." The same observations apply to the case of Alicia. Moreover, the fact that her mother, like that of Teresita, is recorded as "Juanita Co", born in "Amoy" or "Emoy, China" suggests that there is such Juanita Co, born in China, other than "Juanita Go", born in "Manila." Similarly, prima facie "Chin Chan", born in "Manila" and father of Virginia, according to the Record of Births, is not "Chan Chin" born in "Amoy, China." Then, again, "Chan Ching", the father of Vicente Chan, according to the same Record, is presumably other than Chan Chin, considering that "Chan" is a rather common Chinese family name.
In this connection, it should be noted that the order appealed from was issued "on the pleadings", to which petitioner attached photostatic copies of the alleged birth certificates of Teresita, Alicia, Virginia and Vicente, 3 the alien certificates of Registration and the Master Cards of Registered Alien of Chan Chin and Juanita Co, 4 the Chinese Consul General’s certificate of their marriage on October 20, 1945, 5 their marriage contract dated December 8, 1962 6 and the birth certificates of the other alleged children of the petitioner. 7 No effort has been made to establish the authenticity of the originals of these documents. No evidence whatsoever was introduced to prove that the Teresita Uy, Alicia Ching, Chi Uy and Juanita Go mentioned in the birth certificates of the first two 8 are the same Teresita Chan, Alicia Chan, Chan Chin and Juanita Co mentioned in Master Cards of the last two 9 and that the latter are the same persons alluded to in the certification issued by said Consul General and in the aforementioned marriage contract. 10 Neither is there any evidence on record that the "Chin Chan", born in "Manila", mentioned in the birth certificate of Virginia Chan, 11 and the "Chan Ching" referred to in the birth certificate of Vicente Chan, 12 are the same Chan Chin, born in Amoy, China, mentioned in said certificate, marriage contract, and Master Cards. 13
2. According to the petition herein, the allegedly "erroneous entries" in question "were occasioned by petitioner’s wife’s difficulty of speech and pronunciation and failure of complete recollection . . . when she was not yet fully recovered from the rigors of childbirth." In other words, the entries reflect correctly the data furnished by her. Whether or not she committed a mistake in giving such data is a factual issue, which does not appear on the Record of Births, and, hence, cannot be corrected in the summary proceeding under said Article 412.
Needless to say, there is absolutely nothing in the record to bear out the aforementioned averments of petitioner herein regarding the circumstances under which the entries in question have allegedly been made. What is more, there are indications to the contrary, for Teresita Uy was born on March 10, 1947, whereas her birth certificate 14 was filed on March 22, 1947; Alicia was born on May 2, 1949, but her birth certificate 15 was filed on June 18, 1949; Virginia was born on September 26, 1950, but her birth certificate 16 was filed on October 10, 1950; and Vicente was born on May 19, 1952, but his birth certificate 17 was filed on June 12, 1952.
Then, again, petitioner would have Us believe; (1) that Alicia is his second daughter, whereas the birth certificate of "Alicia Ching" 18 states that she is the third child of her parents; (2) that Virginia is his third child, whereas the birth certificate of "Virginia Chan" 19 states that she is the fourth child of "Chin Chan" ; (3) that he (petitioner) is the same "Chan Ching" mentioned in the birth certificate 20 of Vicente Chan, but, according to this document, which was prepared in June, 1952, Chan Ching was 26 years old at his last birthday, whereas petitioner was born on February 2, 1928, pursuant to his Master Card, 21 so that in June, 1952, he was only a little over 24 years of age.
3. The title of the petition herein gave the names of Teresita "Chan" and Alicia "Chan", not those of Teresita "Uy and "Alicia Ching", respectively, appearing in the Record of Births. In Ng Yao Siong v. Republic, 22 it was held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"It is our view that this failure in the heading of the application to give the true name sought to be changed is fundamental; such failure is non-compliance with the strict requirements of publication; it is fatal; and the court did not acquire jurisdiction to hear the case.
". . . Notices in the newspapers, like the one under consideration, usually appear in the back pages. The reader, as is to be expected, merely glances at the title of the petition. It is only after he has satisfied himself that the title interests him, that he proceeds to read down further. The probability is that the portions in the publication heretofore quoted will escape the reader’s notice. The purpose for which the publication is made, that is, to inform, may thus be unserved."cralaw virtua1aw library
In the case at bar, the names of "Teresita Uy" and "Alicia Ching" do not appear, either in the title or in the body of the notice published in connection therewith. Considering that publication of said notice is essential to the jurisdiction of the court in proceedings of this nature; 23 that the purpose of said publication is to bind the whole world; 24 and that, for such publication to be effective, it must give "the true name sought to be changed", 25 we find no reason to depart from the view heretofore adhered to by this Court.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from should be, as it is hereby reversed, and another one shall be entered dismissing the petition herein, with costs against petitioner-appellee Chan Chin. It is so ordered.
Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano and Teehankee, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., did not take part.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon and Sanchez, JJ., are on official leave.
The first of the "children" in question bears the name of Teresita. According to said Record, her family name is "Uy", her father is "Chi Uy" and her mother "Juanita Go", whose birthplace is "Amoy, Chinkang." These entries are sought to be corrected as follows: (1) "Teresita Chan", in lieu of "Teresita Uy" ; (2) "Chan Chin", (appellee herein) in lieu of "Chi Uy" ; (3) "Juanita Co", in lieu of "Juanita Go" ; and (4) "Manila," in lieu of "Amoy, Chinkang."
The second child is Alicia. According to said Record, she is "Alicia Ching", and her parents are "Chang Ching", and "Juanita Go", both born in "Emoy, China." The corrections sought to be made are: (1) "Alicia Chan", in lieu of "Alicia Ching" ; (2) "Chan Chin", in lieu of "Chang Ching" ; (3) "Juanita Co", in lieu of "Juanita Go" ; and (4) "Amoy" instead of "Emoy."
The third is Virginia. According to said Record, her full name is "Virginia Chan", and her father is "Chin Chan", born in "Manila." The corrections sought are: (1) "Chan Chin", in lieu of "Chin Chan" and (2) "Amoy, China", in lieu of "Manila."
The fourth and last is Vicente. According to said Record, his full name is "Vicente Chan," and his father is "Chan Ching." Petitioner maintains that "Chan Ching" should read "Chan Chin."
The appealed order authorizing these amendments should be reversed.
1. The relief sought by petitioner is predicated upon Article 412 of our Civil Code, which provides that: "No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without a judicial order." In Baybayan v. Republic, 1 we stressed that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"It has been the uniform jurisprudence of this Court, since Ty Kong Tin v. Republic (1954), 94 Phil. 321, that substantial alteration, 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 errors, such as misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding (Black v. Republic, L-10869, November 28, 1958; Ansaldo v. Republic, L-10226, February 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, December 24, 1963)." 2
Far from being "harmless" or "innocuous’ the changes sanctioned by the lower court are or may be "substantial" in nature. In the case of Teresita, it affects not only her name, but, also, the identity of her parents and her status. Most certainly, Chi Uy is presumably a person different from Chan Chin, and "Juanita Co", born in "Amoy, Chinkang" is not apparently the same "Juanita Go", born in "Manila." The same observations apply to the case of Alicia. Moreover, the fact that her mother, like that of Teresita, is recorded as "Juanita Co", born in "Amoy" or "Emoy, China" suggests that there is such Juanita Co, born in China, other than "Juanita Go", born in "Manila." Similarly, prima facie "Chin Chan", born in "Manila" and father of Virginia, according to the Record of Births, is not "Chan Chin" born in "Amoy, China." Then, again, "Chan Ching", the father of Vicente Chan, according to the same Record, is presumably other than Chan Chin, considering that "Chan" is a rather common Chinese family name.
In this connection, it should be noted that the order appealed from was issued "on the pleadings", to which petitioner attached photostatic copies of the alleged birth certificates of Teresita, Alicia, Virginia and Vicente, 3 the alien certificates of Registration and the Master Cards of Registered Alien of Chan Chin and Juanita Co, 4 the Chinese Consul General’s certificate of their marriage on October 20, 1945, 5 their marriage contract dated December 8, 1962 6 and the birth certificates of the other alleged children of the petitioner. 7 No effort has been made to establish the authenticity of the originals of these documents. No evidence whatsoever was introduced to prove that the Teresita Uy, Alicia Ching, Chi Uy and Juanita Go mentioned in the birth certificates of the first two 8 are the same Teresita Chan, Alicia Chan, Chan Chin and Juanita Co mentioned in Master Cards of the last two 9 and that the latter are the same persons alluded to in the certification issued by said Consul General and in the aforementioned marriage contract. 10 Neither is there any evidence on record that the "Chin Chan", born in "Manila", mentioned in the birth certificate of Virginia Chan, 11 and the "Chan Ching" referred to in the birth certificate of Vicente Chan, 12 are the same Chan Chin, born in Amoy, China, mentioned in said certificate, marriage contract, and Master Cards. 13
2. According to the petition herein, the allegedly "erroneous entries" in question "were occasioned by petitioner’s wife’s difficulty of speech and pronunciation and failure of complete recollection . . . when she was not yet fully recovered from the rigors of childbirth." In other words, the entries reflect correctly the data furnished by her. Whether or not she committed a mistake in giving such data is a factual issue, which does not appear on the Record of Births, and, hence, cannot be corrected in the summary proceeding under said Article 412.
Needless to say, there is absolutely nothing in the record to bear out the aforementioned averments of petitioner herein regarding the circumstances under which the entries in question have allegedly been made. What is more, there are indications to the contrary, for Teresita Uy was born on March 10, 1947, whereas her birth certificate 14 was filed on March 22, 1947; Alicia was born on May 2, 1949, but her birth certificate 15 was filed on June 18, 1949; Virginia was born on September 26, 1950, but her birth certificate 16 was filed on October 10, 1950; and Vicente was born on May 19, 1952, but his birth certificate 17 was filed on June 12, 1952.
Then, again, petitioner would have Us believe; (1) that Alicia is his second daughter, whereas the birth certificate of "Alicia Ching" 18 states that she is the third child of her parents; (2) that Virginia is his third child, whereas the birth certificate of "Virginia Chan" 19 states that she is the fourth child of "Chin Chan" ; (3) that he (petitioner) is the same "Chan Ching" mentioned in the birth certificate 20 of Vicente Chan, but, according to this document, which was prepared in June, 1952, Chan Ching was 26 years old at his last birthday, whereas petitioner was born on February 2, 1928, pursuant to his Master Card, 21 so that in June, 1952, he was only a little over 24 years of age.
3. The title of the petition herein gave the names of Teresita "Chan" and Alicia "Chan", not those of Teresita "Uy and "Alicia Ching", respectively, appearing in the Record of Births. In Ng Yao Siong v. Republic, 22 it was held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"It is our view that this failure in the heading of the application to give the true name sought to be changed is fundamental; such failure is non-compliance with the strict requirements of publication; it is fatal; and the court did not acquire jurisdiction to hear the case.
". . . Notices in the newspapers, like the one under consideration, usually appear in the back pages. The reader, as is to be expected, merely glances at the title of the petition. It is only after he has satisfied himself that the title interests him, that he proceeds to read down further. The probability is that the portions in the publication heretofore quoted will escape the reader’s notice. The purpose for which the publication is made, that is, to inform, may thus be unserved."cralaw virtua1aw library
In the case at bar, the names of "Teresita Uy" and "Alicia Ching" do not appear, either in the title or in the body of the notice published in connection therewith. Considering that publication of said notice is essential to the jurisdiction of the court in proceedings of this nature; 23 that the purpose of said publication is to bind the whole world; 24 and that, for such publication to be effective, it must give "the true name sought to be changed", 25 we find no reason to depart from the view heretofore adhered to by this Court.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from should be, as it is hereby reversed, and another one shall be entered dismissing the petition herein, with costs against petitioner-appellee Chan Chin. It is so ordered.
Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano and Teehankee, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., did not take part.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon and Sanchez, JJ., are on official leave.
Endnotes:
1. L-20717, March 18, 1966. Italics supplied.
2. See also San Luis de Castro v. Republic, L-17431, April 30, 1963; Lui Lin v. Republic, L-18231, December 24, 1963; Beduya v. Republic, L-17639, May 29, 1964; Reyes v. Republic, L-17642, Nov. 27, 1964; David v. Republic, L-21316, Nov. 29, 1965; Chug Siu v. Local Registrar of Manila, L-20649, July 31, 1967: Jaime Lim v. Local Registrar of Manila, L-24284, Feb. 28, 1968.
3. Annexes A, B, C and D.
4. Annexes E, F, G and H.
5. Annex I.
6. Annex J.
7. Annexes K to Q.
8. Annexes A and B.
9. Annexes G and H.
10. Annexes I and J.
11. Annexes C.
12. Annexes D.
13. Annexes E, F, G and H.
14. Annex A.
15. Annex B.
16. Annex C.
17. Annex D.
18. Annex B.
19. Annex C.
20. Annex D.
21. Annex G.
22. L-20306, March 31, 1966. Italics supplied.
23. Jaime S. Tan v. Republic, L-16384, April 26, 1962.
24. Uy Sioco Nacague Tan v. Republic, L-19847, Apr. 29, 1966.
25. Ng Yao Siong v. Republic, supra.
