Spouses Ramon C. Ferreros and Dulce T. Ferreros v. Republic of the Philippines, et al.
G.R. No. 276941, April 7, 2026
Second Division, Supreme Court
Ponente: Lopez, J.
CASE DIGEST
Nature of the Case
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the spouses' Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65.
The principal question was whether the spouses could use a petition for cancellation of entry in the civil registry under Rule 108 to effectively obtain a judicial declaration that their first marriage was void ab initio for lack of a marriage license.
The Supreme Court held that they could not.
A Rule 108 proceeding cannot be used as a substitute for the proper action for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Since the spouses' real objective was to have their first marriage declared void, the matter falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Family Courts under Republic Act No. 8369.
Importantly, however, the dismissal was without prejudice. The spouses remain free to file the appropriate action before the proper Family Court.
FACTS
Ramon C. Ferreros and Dulce T. Ferreros were married on March 20, 1989 at the Philippine Independent Church in Sta. Cruz, Manila.
Unknown to them at the time, their marriage had been celebrated without a valid marriage license. The absence of a marriage license was indicated in their marriage contract, and the Philippine Independent Church reported the matter to the Manila Local Civil Registry.
The spouses later discovered the absence of the marriage license. Believing that their first marriage was void because of this defect, they subsequently married each other again on October 3, 1995, this time at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon City. The second marriage had the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage.
More than two decades later, on September 7, 2022, the spouses filed a Petition before the Regional Trial Court of Manila for cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry.
They sought cancellation of the entry relating to their 1989 marriage on the ground that the marriage was void ab initio because no marriage license had been obtained.
The RTC dismissed the Petition.
It ruled that the allegations and relief sought effectively asked the court to declare the first marriage void from the beginning. Such a matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Courts.
The RTC further observed that, even assuming the petition was properly brought under Rule 108, the spouses initially failed to implead all indispensable parties required under Section 3 of the Rule.
The dismissal was without prejudice.
The spouses subsequently amended their petition to include the Quezon City Local Civil Registry and sought reconsideration, but the RTC maintained its position.
They then went to the Court of Appeals through a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65.
The CA denied the petition and affirmed the RTC.
The spouses thereafter elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
May spouses use a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil registry under Rule 108 to obtain, in substance, a judicial declaration that their marriage is void ab initio for lack of a marriage license?
No.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the Petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals.
The Court held that the spouses' action was not genuinely a mere petition to correct or cancel an entry in the civil registry.
Its substantive objective was to have their first marriage declared void ab initio.
That distinction was decisive.
The Court explained that Rule 108 may cover cancellation or correction of entries concerning marriages, among other civil-status records. But Rule 108 cannot be employed as a procedural shortcut to obtain the nullification of a marriage.
The appropriate proceeding is a direct action for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage governed by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and cognizable by the Family Court.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court relied principally on two lines of jurisprudence.
1. Rule 108 is generally directed at correction or cancellation of civil-registry entries
The Court quoted Rule 108, Sections 1 and 2, which authorize an interested person to seek cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry upon good and valid grounds.
But the Rule does not give a court unrestricted authority to alter civil-status records whenever doing so would effectively determine a substantive legal controversy.
The Court cited Republic v. Benemerito, where it explained the distinction between a clerical error and a substantial or contentious alteration.
A clerical error is essentially an obvious mistake in recording, copying, spelling, typing, or similar matters.
By contrast, a substantial alteration affecting substantive rights requires an appropriate adversarial proceeding in which interested parties are impleaded and due process is observed.
Thus, Rule 108 cannot be treated as a general-purpose mechanism for litigating substantive questions concerning marital status.
2. A Rule 108 proceeding cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage
The Court found controlling the doctrine in Republic v. Olaybar.
There, the Supreme Court held that a petition for correction or cancellation of a civil-registry entry cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage.
The reason is significant.
Marriage is surrounded by substantive and procedural safeguards established by law. A direct action for declaration of nullity or annulment ensures observance of those safeguards.
These include, among others:
- proof of the legally recognized grounds for nullity or annulment;
- the procedural safeguards under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC;
- support pendente lite where applicable;
- liquidation, partition and distribution of marital property where applicable; and
- investigation by the public prosecutor to determine whether there is collusion.
A Rule 108 proceeding cannot be used to circumvent these requirements.
The Court therefore looked beyond the form of the petition and examined its actual objective.
The Ferreros spouses called their action one for cancellation of an entry. But the cancellation they sought was premised upon their contention that their first marriage was void ab initio.
Consequently, the real controversy concerned their marital status, not merely the accuracy of a civil-registry entry.
THE FAMILY COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
The Court also relied on Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 8369, the Family Courts Act of 1997.
The provision gives Family Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over:
«complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains.»
The Ferreros spouses were effectively asking the judiciary to determine that their 1989 marriage never had legal validity because of the absence of a marriage license.
That is a question concerning marital status and the validity of marriage.
Accordingly, the proper forum is the Family Court.
The RTC therefore correctly refused to entertain the Rule 108 petition.
FORM DOES NOT CONTROL; THE SUBSTANCE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT DOES
One of the practical lessons of the decision is that litigants cannot determine jurisdiction simply by giving their pleading a particular title.
The spouses characterized their action as one for cancellation of a civil-registry entry.
But the Supreme Court examined what they actually wanted the court to accomplish.
Their objective was not simply to correct an erroneous entry, spelling mistake, typographical error, or other clerical defect.
They wanted the legal consequences of the first marriage removed because, according to them, the marriage was void from the beginning.
That required a judicial determination of the validity of the marriage itself.
Thus, the action belonged in the Family Court under the procedure governing declaration of nullity of marriage.
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The Supreme Court made an important procedural clarification.
The RTC's dismissal was without prejudice.
Therefore, the spouses were not barred from pursuing their claim.
They simply had to pursue it through the proper proceeding and before the proper court.
The Court explained the distinction between dismissal with prejudice and dismissal without prejudice.
A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling of the action, while a dismissal without prejudice generally does not prevent the filing of the appropriate action.
The Court further noted that there was no trial on the merits.
The RTC dismissed the case because it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the proceeding as framed.
Consequently, the spouses remained free to file the appropriate action before the Family Court.
NO APPEAL FROM A DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The Court also addressed the procedural posture of the case.
Under Rule 41, Section 1(h) of the Rules of Court, an appeal may not be taken from an order dismissing an action without prejudice.
The Court observed that there was therefore no residual jurisdiction issue arising from an appeal because no appeal had been filed from the RTC's dismissal.
Instead, the spouses pursued the special remedy of certiorari under Rule 65.
The Supreme Court ultimately found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC.
DOCTRINE
A petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil registry under Rule 108 cannot be used as a substitute for a direct action seeking the declaration of nullity of a marriage.
Where the requested cancellation necessarily requires the court to determine that a marriage is void ab initio, the action concerns the validity of the marriage and the marital status of the parties.
Such action falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Family Courts under Section 5(d), Republic Act No. 8369, and must comply with the applicable procedure under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
The substance of the relief sought, rather than the label attached to the petition, determines the nature of the action.
WHY THE CASE MATTERS
The decision is particularly important to lawyers handling civil-status cases.
A civil registry is a record of legally significant events. But the administrative or documentary character of the record does not mean that every dispute involving an entry can be resolved through Rule 108.
The critical question is:
Does the requested correction merely correct the record, or does it require the court to determine a substantive question of civil status?
If the requested relief requires the court to determine whether a marriage is valid or void, the controversy is no longer merely clerical.
It becomes a case concerning marital status, requiring the appropriate substantive and procedural safeguards.
This prevents Rule 108 from becoming an indirect method of obtaining a declaration of nullity without complying with the requirements applicable to marriage cases.
PRACTICE POINT FOR TRIAL LAWYERS
Before filing a Rule 108 petition, counsel should identify the ultimate legal consequence that the client seeks.
If the client's objective is merely to correct an obvious clerical or typographical mistake in a civil-registry record, Rule 108 may be the appropriate procedural vehicle, subject to its requirements.
But if the requested correction necessarily requires the court to determine:
- whether a marriage is valid;
- whether a marriage is void ab initio;
- whether a marriage should be annulled;
- or the parties' substantive marital status,
counsel should examine whether the appropriate remedy is instead a direct proceeding under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC before the Family Court.
The lesson of Ferreros is therefore simple:
Do not confuse correction of the record with adjudication of the legal status recorded in the record.
DISPOSITION
The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition.
It AFFIRMED the June 27, 2024 Decision and October 21, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The Court held that Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila had no jurisdiction to hear the Petition for Cancellation of Entry in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 filed by the Ferreros spouses.
The dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate action before the proper court.
RELATED AUTHORITIES
Republic Act No. 8369 — Family Courts Act of 1997, particularly Section 5(d), concerning the exclusive original jurisdiction of Family Courts over actions for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage and cases relating to marital status.
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages.
Rule 108, Rules of Court — Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry.
Republic v. Olaybar, G.R. No. 189538, February 10, 2014 — holding that a Rule 108 proceeding cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage.
Republic v. Benemerito — concerning the distinction between clerical errors and substantial or contentious alterations in civil-registry entries.
NOTE
Ferreros v. Republic of the Philippines is a useful reminder that jurisdiction follows the true nature of the controversy. A pleading denominated as a petition for cancellation of entry does not become a Rule 108 case when the relief sought necessarily requires the court to adjudicate the validity of a marriage.
For practitioners, the safest analytical approach is to identify first the ultimate relief sought, then determine the appropriate cause of action, procedural rule, and court with jurisdiction.
— Laserna Cueva Mercader Law Offices
Las Piñas City, Philippines
Official source:
[Supreme Court E-Library — Ferreros v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 276941](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70560?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
(Assisted by ChatGPT AI research)
