G.R. No. L-5609. February 05, 1954

This is a petition filed by Ty Kong Tin to correct certain mistakes
which had allegedly been committed in the civil register of the Civil
Registrar of the City of Manila concerning his citizenship.

On May 9, 1951, petitioner filed in the Court of First Instance of
Manila a petition alleging that he is a Filipino citizen duly licensed
to practice law in the Philippines; that all his children were born in
the City of Manila whose births were duly reported to the civil
registrar by the midwife or doctor who had attended their births but in
submitting the report it was made to appear therein that the
citizenship of petitioner was “Chinese” instead of “Filipino” ; that
the aforesaid mistakes were committed by the midwife or doctor without
the knowledge or consent of petitioner who became aware thereof only
when he asked for a certified copy of the birth certificates of his
children; and, therefore, he prays that an order be issued directing
the civil registrar to correct the pertinent portion of the civil
register by making it appear therein that petitioner as well as his
children are Filipino citizens and not Chinese citizens, as authorized
by article 412 of the new Civil Code.

The Civil Registrar of Manila, in his answer, states that he has no
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations contained in the petition but he has no objection to
making the required correction provided he is so ordered by the court.

The court set the petition for hearing not after ordering petitioner
to serve a copy thereof on the Solicitor General for whatever action he
may deem proper to take in the premises. After the hearing was held,
the Solicitor General submitted a written opposition wherein he asks
that the petition be denied on the ground that petitioner has failed to
present satisfactory and convincing evidence in support of his claim
that he is a Filipino citizen.

Issues having been joined, the court rendered decision overruling
the opposition of the Solicitor General and holding that the evidence
presented by petitioner sufficiently establishes the claim that he and.
his children are Filipino citizens, and, consequently, it ordered the
Civil Registrar of Manila to make the necessary correction in his
register as prayed for in the petition. From this decision the
Solicitor General has appealed.

When the case came up for discussion before the members of this
Court, the issue that became the center of controversy revolved around
the interpretation of the provisions of article 412 of the new Civil
Code under which the petition under consideration was filed. This
article provides that “No entry in a civil register shall be changed or
corrected, without a judicial order.” The bone of contention was the
extent or scope of the matters that may be changed or corrected as
contemplated in said legal provision. After a mature deliberation, the
opinion was reached that what was contemplated therein are mere
corrections of mistakes that are clerical in nature and not those which
may affect the civil status or the nationality or citizenship of the
persons involved. If the purpose of the petition is merely to correct a
clerical error then the court may issue an order in order that the
error or mistake may be corrected. If it refers to a substantial
change, which affects the status or citizenship of a party, the matter
should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon the nature of
the issue involved. Such action can be found at random in our
substantive and remedial laws the implementation of which will
naturally depend upon the factors and circumstances that might arise
affecting the interested parties. This opinion is predicated upon the
theory that the procedure contemplated in article 412 is summary in
nature which cannot cover cases involving controversial issues.

It is our opinion that the petition under consideration does not
merely call for a correction of a clerical error. It involves a matter
which concerns the citizenship not only of petitioner but of his
children. It is therefore an important controversial matter which can
and should only be threshed out in an appropriate action. The
philosophy behind this requirement lies in the fact that “the books
making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto shall
be considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the
facts thereon contained” (Article 410, new Civil Code), and if the
entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed through a
mere summary proceeding, and not through an appropriate action wherein
all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or
represented, we would set wide open the door to fraud or other mischief
the consequence of which might be detrimental and far reaching. It is
for these reasons that the law has placed the necessary safeguards to
forestall such eventuality that even on matters which call for a
correction of clerical mistakes the intervention of the courts was
found necessary. This is an innovation not originally found in the law
which placed this matter exclusively upon the sound judgment and
discretion of the civil registrars. This was found by Congress unwise
and risky in view of the far reaching importance of the subjects
covered by the civil register. And under the present innovation the law
even exacts civil liability from the civil registrar for any
unauthorized alteration, which shows the concern of Congress in
maintaining the integrity and genuineness of the entries contained in
our civil registers (Article 411, new Civil Code).

The foregoing make it unnecessary for, us to consider the issues raised by the Solicitor General in the present appeal.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The petition is dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, and Labrador, JJ., concur.