SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-48720 October 30, 1979

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. FELIX V. BARBERS, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXXIII, and DOMINADOR AQUINO ESTRADA, respondent-appellees.

AQUINO, J.:

This case is about the cancellation of an entry in a civil register. In the birth certificate, on file in the civil registry of Manila, of May-Velin Estrada, who was born on May 25, 1973, item 24 thereof, dealing with "Date and Place of Marriage of Parents (For legitimate birth)", contains the following entry: "June 18, 1972, San Juan, Rizal".chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On the other hand, in the birth certificate of May-Velin's Younger brother, Dominador Estrada, Jr. (he was born on June 21, 1974), the entry under that same item 24 was "Not married".chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The parents of the two children claim that they are not married to each other. The wife or mother, Filipinos Vea Agbunag Estrada, testified that she lied to the nurse, who assisted at the birth of May-Velin, that she was married to Dominador Aquino Estrada. She said that she concocted that he because she was ashamed to admit that she was not married to the father of the child.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On July 8, 1977, the father, Dominador, filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila an amended verified petition, praying for the cancellation of that alleged erroneous entry in item 24 of May-Velins record of birth. The local civil registrar of Manila alleged in his answer to the petition that the correction sought was substantial and controversial because it involved a change of status.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The Solicitor General opposed the petition on the ground that the cancellation was not authorized under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court because, if it were allowed, the status of the child would be changed from legitimate to illegitimate.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

After due publication and hearing, the lower court found the petition to be meritorious. It ordered the local civil registrar of Manila to cancel the said entry. The State appealed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The appeal should be sustained. Long settled is the rule that the errors which can be corrected or cancelled under the summary procedure contemplated in article 412 of the Civil Code, as implemented in Rule 108, refer to clerical errors or harmless and innocuous changes but not to substantial and controversial matters.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Since the entry sought to be cancelled concerns the status of a child as legitimate or illegitimate and the civil status of the parents as married or unmarried, the alleged error refers to a substantial and vital matter. Its cancellation is not covered by Rule 108 (Republic vs. Court of First Instance of Davao Oriental, L-31748, August 20, 1979 and cases cited therein).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In David vs. Republic, L-21316, November 29, 1965, 15 SCRA 438, one of the corrections in the birth record requested by the petitioner was "to delete the place and date of marriage placed therein because there exists no such marriage". That relief was denied. It was held that petitioner's remedy was in an adversary proceeding.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the lower court's order dated May 2, 1978, cancelling the entry as to the date and place of marriage of the petitioner and his alleged common-law wife, is reversed and set aside. No costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.