See - When A Petition For Cancellation Or Correction Of An Entry In The Civil Register Involves Substantial And Controversial Alterations, Including Those On Citizenship, Legitimacy Of Paternity Or Filiation, Or Legitimacy Of Marriage, A Strict Compliance With The Requirements Of Rule 108 Of The Rules Of Court Is Mandated…
G.R. No. 198010, August 12, 2013, REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. DR. NORMA S. LUGSANAY UY, RESPONDENT.
(Cf. THE LAWYER’S POST).
“x x x.
In this case, respondent sought the correction of entries in her birth certificate, particularly those pertaining to her first name, surname and citizenship. She sought the correction allegedly to reflect the name which she has been known for since childhood, including her legal documents such as passport and school and professional records. She likewise relied on the birth certificates of her full blood siblings who bear the surname “Lugsanay” instead of “Sy” and citizenship of “Filipino” instead of “Chinese.” The changes, however, are obviously not mere clerical as they touch on respondent’s filiation and citizenship.
In changing her surname from “Sy” (which is the surname of her father) to “Lugsanay” (which is the surname of her mother), she, in effect, changes her status from legitimate to illegitimate; and in changing her citizenship from Chinese to Filipino, the same affects her rights and obligations in this country. Clearly, the changes are substantial.
It has been settled in a number of cases starting with Republic v. Valencia2 that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding.3 The pronouncement of the Court in that case is illuminating:
It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the correction of clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as controverted, affirmative relief cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in nature. However, it is also true that a right in law may be enforced and a wrong may be remedied as long as the appropriate remedy is used.
This Court adheres to the principle that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. x x x
What is meant by “appropriate adversary proceeding?” Black’s Law Dictionary defines “adversary proceeding” as follows:
One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte application, one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. Excludes an adoption proceeding.4
In sustaining the RTC decision, the CA relied on the Court’s conclusion in Republic v. Kho,5 Alba v. Court of Appeals,6 and Barco v. Court of Appeals7 that the failure to implead indispensable parties was cured by the publication of the notice of hearing pursuant to the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
In Republic v. Kho8 petitioner therein appealed the RTC decision granting the petition for correction of entries despite respondents’ failure to implead the minor’s mother as an indispensable party. The Court, however, did not strictly apply the provisions of Rule 108, because it opined that it was highly improbable that the mother was unaware of the proceedings to correct the entries in her children’s birth certificates especially since the notices, orders and decision of the trial court were all sent to the residence she shared with them9
In Alba v. Court of Appeals,10 the Court found nothing wrong with the trial court’s decision granting the petition for correction of entries filed by respondent although the proceedings was not actually known by petitioner. In that case, petitioner’s mother and guardian was impleaded in the petition for correction of entries, and notices were sent to her address appearing in the subject birth certificate. However, the notice was returned unserved, because apparently she no longer lived there. Thus, when she allegedly learned of the granting of the petition, she sought the annulment of judgment which the Court denied. Considering that the petition for correction of entries is a proceeding in
rem, the Court held that acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner is, therefore, not required and the absence of personal service was cured by the trial court’s compliance with Rule 108 which requires notice by publication.11
In Barco v. Court of Appeals12 the Court addressed the question of whether the court acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and all other indispensable parties to the petition for correction of entries despite the failure to implead them in said case. While recognizing that petitioner was indeed an indispensable party, the failure to implead her was cured by compliance with Section 4 of Rule 108 which requires notice by publication. In so ruling, the Court pointed out that the petitioner in a petition for correction cannot be presumed to be aware of all the parties whose interests may be affected by the granting of a petition. It emphasized that the petitioner therein exerted earnest effort to comply with the provisions of Rule 108. Thus, the publication of the notice of hearing was considered to have cured the failure to implead indispensable parties.
In this case, it was only the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City who was impleaded as respondent in the petition below. This, notwithstanding, the RTC granted her petition and allowed the correction sought by respondent, which decision was affirmed in
toto by the CA.
We do not agree with the RTC and the CA.
This is not the first time that the Court is confronted with the issue involved in this case. Aside from Kho, Alba and Barco, the Court has addressed the same in Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo13 Ceruila v. Delantar,14 and Labayo-Rowe v. Republic15
In Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo16 claiming that his parents were never legally married, respondent therein filed a petition to change his name from “Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo,” the name appearing in his birth certificate to “Julian Edward Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng.” The notice setting the petition for hearing was published and there being no opposition thereto, the trial court issued an order of general default and eventually granted respondent’s petition deleting the entry on the date and place of marriage of parties; correcting his surname from “Magpayo” to “Coseteng”; deleting the entry “Coseteng” for middle name; and deleting the entry “Fulvio Miranda Magpayo, Jr.” in the space for his father. The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, assailed the RTC decision on the grounds that the corrections made on respondent’s birth certificate had the effect of changing the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate and must only be effected through an appropriate adversary proceeding. The Court nullified the RTC decision for respondent’s failure to comply strictly with the procedure laid down in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Aside from the wrong remedy availed of by respondent as he filed a petition for Change of Name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, assuming that he filed a petition under Rule 108 which is the appropriate remedy, the petition still failed because of improper venue and failure to implead the Civil Registrar of Makati City and all affected parties as respondents in the case.
In Ceruila v. Delantar17 the Ceruilas filed a petition for the cancellation and annulment of the birth certificate of respondent on the ground that the same was made as an instrument of the crime of simulation of birth and, therefore, invalid and spurious, and it falsified all material entries therein. The RTC issued an order setting the case for hearing with a directive that the same be published and that any person who is interested in the petition may interpose his comment or opposition on or before the scheduled hearing.
Summons was likewise sent to the Civil Register of Manila. After which, the trial court granted the petition and nullified respondent’s birth certificate. Few months after, respondent filed a petition for the annulment of judgment claiming that she and her guardian were not notified of the petition and the trial court’s decision, hence, the latter was issued without jurisdiction and in violation of her right to due process. The Court annulled the trial court’s decision for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 108, especially the non-impleading of respondent herself whose birth certificate was nullified.
In Labayo-Rowe v. Republic,18 petitioner filed a petition for the correction of entries in the birth certificates of her children, specifically to change her name from Beatriz V. Labayu/Beatriz Labayo to Emperatriz Labayo, her civil status from “married” to “single,” and the date and place of marriage from “1953-Bulan” to “No marriage.” The Court modified the trial court’s decision by nullifying the portion thereof which directs the change of petitioner’s civil status as well as the filiation of her child, because it was the OSG only that was made respondent and the proceedings taken was summary in nature which is short of what is required in cases where substantial alterations are sought.
Respondent’s birth certificate shows that her full name is Anita Sy, that she is a Chinese citizen and a legitimate child of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay. In filing the petition, however, she seeks the correction of her first name and surname, her status from “legitimate” to “illegitimate” and her citizenship from “Chinese” to “Filipino.” Thus, respondent should have impleaded and notified not only the Local Civil Registrar but also her parents and siblings as the persons who have interest and are affected by the changes or corrections respondent wanted to make.
The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the nature of the proceedings taken.19 A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to different potential oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties.20 Summons must, therefore, be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.21
While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties may be cured
by the publication of the notice of hearing, earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested parties22 Such failure was likewise excused where the interested parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings;23 when there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested parties;24 or when a party is inadvertently left out.25
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that when a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations, including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is mandated26 If the entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed through mere summary proceedings and not through appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief would be set open, the consequence of which might be detrimental and far reaching27
X x x.”
“x x x.
In this case, respondent sought the correction of entries in her birth certificate, particularly those pertaining to her first name, surname and citizenship. She sought the correction allegedly to reflect the name which she has been known for since childhood, including her legal documents such as passport and school and professional records. She likewise relied on the birth certificates of her full blood siblings who bear the surname “Lugsanay” instead of “Sy” and citizenship of “Filipino” instead of “Chinese.” The changes, however, are obviously not mere clerical as they touch on respondent’s filiation and citizenship.
In changing her surname from “Sy” (which is the surname of her father) to “Lugsanay” (which is the surname of her mother), she, in effect, changes her status from legitimate to illegitimate; and in changing her citizenship from Chinese to Filipino, the same affects her rights and obligations in this country. Clearly, the changes are substantial.
It has been settled in a number of cases starting with Republic v. Valencia2 that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding.3 The pronouncement of the Court in that case is illuminating:
It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the correction of clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as controverted, affirmative relief cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in nature. However, it is also true that a right in law may be enforced and a wrong may be remedied as long as the appropriate remedy is used.
This Court adheres to the principle that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. x x x
What is meant by “appropriate adversary proceeding?” Black’s Law Dictionary defines “adversary proceeding” as follows:
One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte application, one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. Excludes an adoption proceeding.4
In sustaining the RTC decision, the CA relied on the Court’s conclusion in Republic v. Kho,5 Alba v. Court of Appeals,6 and Barco v. Court of Appeals7 that the failure to implead indispensable parties was cured by the publication of the notice of hearing pursuant to the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
In Republic v. Kho8 petitioner therein appealed the RTC decision granting the petition for correction of entries despite respondents’ failure to implead the minor’s mother as an indispensable party. The Court, however, did not strictly apply the provisions of Rule 108, because it opined that it was highly improbable that the mother was unaware of the proceedings to correct the entries in her children’s birth certificates especially since the notices, orders and decision of the trial court were all sent to the residence she shared with them9
In Alba v. Court of Appeals,10 the Court found nothing wrong with the trial court’s decision granting the petition for correction of entries filed by respondent although the proceedings was not actually known by petitioner. In that case, petitioner’s mother and guardian was impleaded in the petition for correction of entries, and notices were sent to her address appearing in the subject birth certificate. However, the notice was returned unserved, because apparently she no longer lived there. Thus, when she allegedly learned of the granting of the petition, she sought the annulment of judgment which the Court denied. Considering that the petition for correction of entries is a proceeding in
rem, the Court held that acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner is, therefore, not required and the absence of personal service was cured by the trial court’s compliance with Rule 108 which requires notice by publication.11
In Barco v. Court of Appeals12 the Court addressed the question of whether the court acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and all other indispensable parties to the petition for correction of entries despite the failure to implead them in said case. While recognizing that petitioner was indeed an indispensable party, the failure to implead her was cured by compliance with Section 4 of Rule 108 which requires notice by publication. In so ruling, the Court pointed out that the petitioner in a petition for correction cannot be presumed to be aware of all the parties whose interests may be affected by the granting of a petition. It emphasized that the petitioner therein exerted earnest effort to comply with the provisions of Rule 108. Thus, the publication of the notice of hearing was considered to have cured the failure to implead indispensable parties.
In this case, it was only the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City who was impleaded as respondent in the petition below. This, notwithstanding, the RTC granted her petition and allowed the correction sought by respondent, which decision was affirmed in
toto by the CA.
We do not agree with the RTC and the CA.
This is not the first time that the Court is confronted with the issue involved in this case. Aside from Kho, Alba and Barco, the Court has addressed the same in Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo13 Ceruila v. Delantar,14 and Labayo-Rowe v. Republic15
In Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo16 claiming that his parents were never legally married, respondent therein filed a petition to change his name from “Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo,” the name appearing in his birth certificate to “Julian Edward Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng.” The notice setting the petition for hearing was published and there being no opposition thereto, the trial court issued an order of general default and eventually granted respondent’s petition deleting the entry on the date and place of marriage of parties; correcting his surname from “Magpayo” to “Coseteng”; deleting the entry “Coseteng” for middle name; and deleting the entry “Fulvio Miranda Magpayo, Jr.” in the space for his father. The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, assailed the RTC decision on the grounds that the corrections made on respondent’s birth certificate had the effect of changing the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate and must only be effected through an appropriate adversary proceeding. The Court nullified the RTC decision for respondent’s failure to comply strictly with the procedure laid down in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Aside from the wrong remedy availed of by respondent as he filed a petition for Change of Name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, assuming that he filed a petition under Rule 108 which is the appropriate remedy, the petition still failed because of improper venue and failure to implead the Civil Registrar of Makati City and all affected parties as respondents in the case.
In Ceruila v. Delantar17 the Ceruilas filed a petition for the cancellation and annulment of the birth certificate of respondent on the ground that the same was made as an instrument of the crime of simulation of birth and, therefore, invalid and spurious, and it falsified all material entries therein. The RTC issued an order setting the case for hearing with a directive that the same be published and that any person who is interested in the petition may interpose his comment or opposition on or before the scheduled hearing.
Summons was likewise sent to the Civil Register of Manila. After which, the trial court granted the petition and nullified respondent’s birth certificate. Few months after, respondent filed a petition for the annulment of judgment claiming that she and her guardian were not notified of the petition and the trial court’s decision, hence, the latter was issued without jurisdiction and in violation of her right to due process. The Court annulled the trial court’s decision for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 108, especially the non-impleading of respondent herself whose birth certificate was nullified.
In Labayo-Rowe v. Republic,18 petitioner filed a petition for the correction of entries in the birth certificates of her children, specifically to change her name from Beatriz V. Labayu/Beatriz Labayo to Emperatriz Labayo, her civil status from “married” to “single,” and the date and place of marriage from “1953-Bulan” to “No marriage.” The Court modified the trial court’s decision by nullifying the portion thereof which directs the change of petitioner’s civil status as well as the filiation of her child, because it was the OSG only that was made respondent and the proceedings taken was summary in nature which is short of what is required in cases where substantial alterations are sought.
Respondent’s birth certificate shows that her full name is Anita Sy, that she is a Chinese citizen and a legitimate child of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay. In filing the petition, however, she seeks the correction of her first name and surname, her status from “legitimate” to “illegitimate” and her citizenship from “Chinese” to “Filipino.” Thus, respondent should have impleaded and notified not only the Local Civil Registrar but also her parents and siblings as the persons who have interest and are affected by the changes or corrections respondent wanted to make.
The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the nature of the proceedings taken.19 A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to different potential oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties.20 Summons must, therefore, be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.21
While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties may be cured
by the publication of the notice of hearing, earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested parties22 Such failure was likewise excused where the interested parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings;23 when there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested parties;24 or when a party is inadvertently left out.25
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that when a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations, including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is mandated26 If the entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed through mere summary proceedings and not through appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief would be set open, the consequence of which might be detrimental and far reaching27
X x x.”
