SECOND DIVISION
|
REPUBLIC
OF THE Petitioner, - versus - CARLITO I.
KHO, MICHAEL KHO, MERCY NONA KHO-FORTUN, HEDDY MOIRA KHO-SERRANO, KEVIN
DOGMOC KHO (Minor), and KELLY DOGMOC KHO (Minor), Respondents. |
G.R. No. 170340 Present: QUISUMBING,* J.,
Chairperson CARPIO,** CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR.,
JJ. PROMULGATED: June 29, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Challenged
via petition for review on certiorari is the
The
undisputed facts are as follows:
On
In
the case of Carlito, he requested the correction in his birth certificate of
the citizenship of his mother to “Filipino” instead of “Chinese,” as well as
the deletion of the word “married” opposite the phrase “Date of marriage of
parents” because his parents, Juan Kho and Epifania Inchoco (Epifania), were
allegedly not legally married.
The same request to delete the
“married” status of their parents from their respective birth certificates was
made by Carlito’s siblings Michael, Mercy Nona, and Heddy Moira.
With
respect to the birth certificates of Carlito’s children, he prayed that the
date of his and his wife’s marriage be corrected from
The Local Civil Registrar of Butuan
City was impleaded as respondent.
On
As required, the petition was
published for three consecutive weeks[4] in
Mindanao Daily Patrol-CARAGA, a newspaper of general circulation, after which
it was set for hearing on
In a letter of
On the scheduled hearing of the
petition on
On
By Decision[8] of
September 4, 2002, the trial court directed the local civil registrar of Butuan
City to correct the entries in the record of birth of Carlito, as follows: (1)
change the citizenship of his mother from “Chinese” to “Filipino”; (2) delete
“John” from his name; and (3) delete the word “married” opposite the date of
marriage of his parents. The last correction was ordered to be effected
likewise in the birth certificates of respondents Michael, Mercy Nona, and Heddy Moira.
Additionally, the trial court ordered
the correction of the birth certificates of the minor children of Carlito to
reflect the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel Dogmoc (Marivel) as
With respect to the marriage
certificate of Carlito and Marivel, the corrections ordered pertained to the
alteration of the name of Carlito’s father from “John Kho” to “Juan Kho” and
the latter’s citizenship from “Filipino” to “Chinese.”
Petitioner, Republic of the
Philippines, appealed the RTC Decision to the CA, faulting the trial court in
granting the petition for correction of entries in the subject documents despite
the failure of respondents to implead the minors’ mother, Marivel, as an
indispensable party and to offer sufficient evidence to warrant the corrections
with regard to the questioned “married” status of Carlito and his siblings’
parents, and the latter’s citizenship.
Petitioner also faulted the trial
court for ordering the change of the name “Carlito John Kho” to “Carlito Kho” for
non-compliance with jurisdictional requirements for a change of name under Rule
103 of the Rules of Court.
By the assailed Decision of
The CA found that Rule 108 of the
Revised Rules of Court, which outlines the proper procedure for cancellation or
correction of entries in the civil registry, was observed in the case.
Regarding Carlito’s minor children
Kevin and Kelly, the appellate court held that the correction of their mother’s
first name from “Maribel” to “Marivel” was made to rectify an innocuous
error.
As for the change in the date of the
marriage of Carlito and Marivel, albeit the CA conceded that it is a
substantial alteration, it held that the date would not affect the minors’
filiation from “legitimate” to “illegitimate” considering that at the time of
their respective births in 1991 and 1993, their father Carlito’s first marriage
was still subsisting as it had been annulled only in 1999.
In light of Carlito’s legal
impediment to marry Marivel at the time they were born, their children Kevin
and Kelly were illegitimate. It
followed, the CA went on to state, that Marivel was not an indispensable party
to the case, the minors having been represented by their father as required
under Section 5 of Rule 3[9] of
the Revised Rules of Court.
Further, the CA ruled that although
Carlito failed to observe the requirements of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court,
he had complied nonetheless with the jurisdictional requirements for correction
of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The petition for correction of entry in
Carlito’s birth record, it noted, falls under letter “o” of the enumeration
under Section 2 of Rule 108.
In the present petition, petitioner
contends that since the changes sought by respondents were substantial in
nature, they could only be granted through an adversarial proceeding in which
indispensable parties, such as Marivel and respondents’ parents, should have
been notified or impleaded.
Petitioner further contends that the
jurisdictional requirements to change Carlito’s name under Section 2 of Rule
103 of the Rules of Court were not satisfied because the Amended Petition
failed to allege Carlito’s prior three-year bona fide residence in
The petition fails.
It can not be gainsaid that the
petition, insofar as it sought to change the citizenship of Carlito’s mother as
it appeared in his birth certificate and delete the “married” status of Carlito’s
parents in his and his siblings’ respective birth certificates, as well as change
the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel involves the correction of not just
clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature.[10] Rather, the changes entail substantial and
controversial amendments.
For the change involving the
nationality of Carlito’s mother as reflected in his birth certificate is a
grave and important matter that has a bearing and effect on the citizenship and nationality not only
of the parents, but also of the offspring.[11]
Further, the deletion of the entry
that Carlito’s and his siblings’ parents were “married” alters their filiation
from “legitimate” to “illegitimate,” with significant implications on their
successional and other rights.
Clearly, the changes sought can only be
granted in an adversary proceeding. Labayo-Rowe v. Republic[12]
explains the raison d etre:
x x x. The philosophy behind this requirement lies in the fact that the books making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained. 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 reaching. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
In Republic v. Valencia,[13] however, this Court ruled, and has since repeatedly ruled, that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected through a petition filed under Rule 108.[14]
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 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. x x x [15] (Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048,
otherwise known as “An Act Authorizing
the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct a
Clerical or Typographical Error in an Entry and/or Change of First Name or
Nickname in the Civil Register Without Need of Judicial Order,” has been
considered to lend legislative affirmation to the judicial precedence that
substantial corrections to the civil status of persons recorded in the civil
registry may be effected through the filing of a petition under Rule 108.[16]
Thus, this Court in Republic v. Benemerito[17] observed that the obvious effect of Republic
Act No. 9048 is to make possible the administrative correction of clerical or
typographical errors or change of first name or nickname in entries in the
civil register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction of substantial changes in
the civil registry in appropriate adversarial proceedings.
When all the procedural requirements
under Rule 108 are thus followed, the appropriate adversary proceeding
necessary to effect substantial corrections to the entries of the civil register
is satisfied.[18] The pertinent provisions of Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court read:
SEC.
3. Parties.
– When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil registrar is sought,
the civil registrar and all persons
who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made
parties to the proceeding.
SEC. 4. Notice and publication. — Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once in a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
SEC. 5. Opposition. — The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
There is no dispute that the trial
court’s Order[19] setting
the petition for hearing and directing any person or entity having interest in
the petition to oppose it was posted[20]
as well as published for the required period; that notices of hearings were duly served on
the Solicitor General, the city prosecutor of Butuan and the local civil
registrar; and that trial was conducted
on January 31, 2002 during which the public prosecutor, acting in behalf of the
OSG, actively participated by cross-examining Carlito and Epifania.
What surfaces as an issue is whether
the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito’s parents rendered the trial short
of the required adversary proceeding and the trial court’s judgment void.
A similar issue was earlier raised in
Barco v. Court of Appeals.[21] That case stemmed from a petition for
correction of entries in the birth certificate of a minor, June Salvacion
Maravilla, to reflect the name of her real father (Armando Gustilo) and to
correspondingly change her surname. The
petition was granted by the trial court.
Barco, whose minor daughter was
allegedly fathered also by Gustilo, however, sought to annul the trial court’s
decision, claiming that she should have been made a party to the petition for
correction. Failure to implead her
deprived the RTC of jurisdiction, she contended.
In dismissing Barco’s petition, this
Court held that the publication of the order of hearing under Section 4 of Rule
108 cured the failure to implead an indispensable party.
The essential requisite for allowing substantial corrections of entries in the civil registry is that the true facts be established in an appropriate adversarial proceeding. This is embodied in Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which states:
Section 3. Parties. – When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.
x x x x
Undoubtedly, Barco is among the parties referred to in Section 3 of Rule 108. Her interest was affected by the petition for correction, as any judicial determination that June was the daughter of Armando would affect her ward’s share in the estate of her father. x x x.
Yet, even though Barco was not impleaded in the petition, the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that the defect was cured by compliance with Section 4, Rule 108, which requires notice by publication x x x.
x x x x
The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world to the subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of the decision would cover even parties who should have been impleaded under Section 3, Rule 108, but were inadvertently left out. x x x
x x x x
Verily, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and not against a person. The decision on the petition binds not only the parties thereto but the whole world. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[22]
Given
the above ruling, it becomes unnecessary to rule on whether Marivel or
respondents’ parents should have been impleaded as parties to the
proceeding. It may not be amiss to
mention, however, that during the hearing on
Parenthetically, it seems highly
improbable that Marivel 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[23]
she shared with Carlito and the children.
It is also well to remember that the
role of the court in hearing a petition to correct certain entries in the civil
registry is to ascertain the truth about the facts recorded therein.[24]
With respect to the date of marriage
of Carlito and Marivel, their certificate of marriage[25]
shows that indeed they were married on
With respect to Carlito’s mother, it bears
noting that she declared at the witness stand that she was not married to Juan
Kho who died in 1959.[27]
Again, that testimony was not challenged by the city prosecutor.
The documentary evidence supporting
the deletion from Carlito’s and his siblings’ birth certificates of the entry
“Married” opposite the date of marriage of their parents, moreover, consisted
of a certification issued on November 24, 1973 by St. Joseph (Butuan City)
Parish priest Eugene van Vught stating that Juan Kho and Epifania had been
living together as common law couple since 1935 but have never contracted
marriage legally.[28]
A certification from the office of
the city registrar, which was appended to respondents’ Amended Petition,
likewise stated that it has no record of marriage between Juan Kho and Epifania.[29]
Under the circumstances, the deletion of the word “Married” opposite the “date
of marriage of parents” is warranted.
With respect to the correction in
Carlito’s birth certificate of his name from “Carlito John” to “Carlito,” the
same was properly granted under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. As correctly pointed out by the CA, the
cancellation or correction of entries involving changes of name falls under
letter “o” of the following provision of Section 2 of Rule 108:[30]
Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. — Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separation; (e) judgments of annulment of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Hence, while the jurisdictional
requirements of Rule 103 (which governs petitions for change of name) were not
complied with, observance of the provisions of Rule 108 suffices to effect the
correction sought for.
More importantly, Carlito’s official
transcript of record from the
The correction of the mother’s
citizenship from Chinese to Filipino as appearing in Carlito’s birth record was
also proper. Of note is the fact that during
the cross examination by the city prosecutor of Epifania, he did not deem fit
to question her citizenship. Such failure to oppose the correction
prayed for, which certainly was not respondents’ fault, does not in any way
change the adversarial nature of the proceedings.
Also significant to note is that the
birth certificates of Carlito’s siblings uniformly stated the citizenship of
Epifania as “Filipino.” To disallow the
correction in Carlito’s birth record of his mother’s citizenship would
perpetuate an inconsistency in the natal circumstances of the siblings who are
unquestionably born of the same mother and father.
Outside the ambit of substantial
corrections, of course, is the correction of the name of Carlito’s wife from
“Maribel” to “Marivel.” The mistake is clearly clerical or typographical, which
is not only visible to the eyes, but is also obvious to the understanding[34]
considering that the name reflected in the marriage certificate of Carlito and
his wife is “Marivel.”
Apropos is Yu v. Republic[35] which
held that changing the appellant’s Christian name of “Sincio” to “Sencio”
amounts merely to the righting of a clerical error. The change of name from
Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz Labayu to Emperatriz Labayo was also held to be a mere
innocuous alteration, which can be granted through a summary proceeding.[36] The same ruling holds true with respect to the
correction in Carlito’s marriage certificate of his father’s name from “John
Kho” to “Juan Kho.” Except in said marriage
certificate, the name “Juan Kho” was uniformly entered in the birth certificates
of Carlito and of his siblings.[37]
WHEREFORE, the
Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
(ON OFFICIAL LEAVE)
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice Acting Chairperson |
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13
of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* On Official Leave.
** Acting Chairperson.
[1] CA rollo, pp. 50-63; penned by Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and concurred in by Justices Romulo V. Borja (then Chairman of the Twenty-Second Division) and Ricardo R. Rosario.
[2] Rollo, pp. 45-48; penned by Judge Augustus L. Calo.
[3]
[4] Records, pp. 62-64. The petition was published on June 1, 8, and 15, 2001 as shown by the copies of the newspaper publications of even date, which were marked as Exhibits “E,” “F” and “G.”
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Rollo, pp. 45-48.
[9] SEC. 5. Minor or incompetent persons. – A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued, with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem.
[10] Labayo-Rowe v. Republic of the
[11] Ty Kong Tin v. Republic, 94 Phil. 321, 324 (1954).
[12] Supra note 10 at 299-300, citing Ty Kong Tin v. Republic, supra.
[13] Supra note 10.
[14] Vide
Republic v. Lim, 464 Phil. 151, 157
(2004); Eloeosida v. Local Civil Registrar of
[15] Republic
v.
[16] Barco v. Court of Appeals, 465 Phil. 39,
61 (2004).
[17] G.R. No.
146963,
[18] Lee v. Court of Appeals, 419 Phil. 392¸ 405 (2001).
[19] Records, pp. 28-29. The Order was issued by then Acting Presiding Judge Victor A. Tomaneng.
[20]
[21] Supra note 16.
[22] Supra at 55-57. The ruling was reiterated in Alba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164041, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 495, 506-508.
[23] Records,
p. 75. Copies of these Orders and of the
Decision were mailed to
[24] Republic v.
[25] Records, p. 55, Exhibit “K.”
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30] Vide Republic v. CA, 325 Phil. 361, 368 (1996).
[31] Records, pp. 51-52, Exhibit “J.”
[32]
[33]
[34] Leonor v. CA, 326 Phil. 74, 87
(1996); Black v. Republic, 104 Phil. 848, 849 (1958).
[35] 129 Phil. 248, 249 (1967).
[36] Labayo-Rowe v. Republic, supra note 10 at 300.
[37] Records, pp. 7-10; Exhibits “N” to “Q.”