RE: PETITION TO CORRECT ENTRY IN THE CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH OF BARTOLOME CALICDAN BAYBAYAN, JR. CONSUELO CALICDAN BAYBAYAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILI…

Direct appeal on points of law from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan in Civil Case No. 14219, the dispositive part of
which is as follows(Rec. on Appeal, p. 12):

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, decision is hereby
rendered ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Bugallon, Pangasinan, to
make the proper corrections in the certificate of live birth of
Bartolome C. Baybayan, Jr., by crossing out the word ‘American’ under
No. 8 in the certificate of live birth, and inserting therein in red
ink the word ‘Filipino’, and by crossing also the word ‘Balungao’ under
No. 10, birthplace ‘Urdaneta’, and to furnish a copy of said corrected
certificate of live birth with the office of the Civil Registrar
General, Bureau of Census and Statistics, Manila.

SO ORDERED.

Given at Lingayen, Pangasinan, this 28th day of November, 1962.

(SGD.) ELOY . BELLO
Judge”

The foregoing judgment was entered upon petition of Consuelo
Calicdan Baybayan, filed in the court aforesaid on October 12, 1962,
praying that the certificate of birth of her son, Bartolome Calicdan
Baybayan, Jr., be corrected “to make it appear in said certificate that
the place of birth of his father, Bartolome E. Baybayan, is Urdaneta,
Pangasinan, and his citizenship is Filipino” (Rec. App. p. 3) on the
ground that petitioner’s mother, Valentina Garcia, whom she had
requested to register the birth of the boy in the Office of the Local
Civil Registrar of Bugallon, Pangasinan, made a mistake in giving the
birthplace of her husband as Balongao, Pangasinan, and his citizenship
as American.

The court caused copies of the petition to be served on the
Solicitor General, the Provincial Fiscal, and the Local Civil
Registrar. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor
General and the Provincial Fiscal, opposed the petition, claiming that
the court had no jurisdiction to order such substantial changes as
those prayed for in a summary proceeding under Article 412 of the Civil
Code, as repeatedly decided by this Supreme Court.

Overruling the opposition, the court a quo declared that upon proof
of mistake it did have power to order the changes sought, and did so.
Wherefore, the State appealed.

The decision must be reversed. It has been the uniform jurisprudence
of this Court, since Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic (1954) 94 Phil. 321, that
substantial alterations, such as those affecting the status and
citizenship of a person in the Civil Registry records, can not be
ordered by the court unless first threshed out in an “appropriate
action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are
notified or represented” (see Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court),
and that the summary proceedings under Article 412 of the Civil Code
only justify an order to correct innocuous or clerical errors, such as
misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or
obvious to the understanding (Black vs. Republic, L-10869, Nov. 28,
1958; Ansaldo vs. Republic L-10226, Feb. 14, 1958; Tan Su vs. Republic,
L-12140, April 29, 1959; Bentoto vs. Republic, L-14978, May 23, 1961;
De Castro vs. Republic, L-17431, April 30, 1963; Lui Lin vs. Republic,
L-18213, Dec. 24, 1963).

In Ansaldo vs. Republic, supra, this Court said:

“For
the information of the parties concerned, and for the guidance of the
public in general, we may venture the opinion that the clerical errors
which might be corrected through judicial sanction under Article 412 of
the New Civil Code, would be those harmless and innocuous changes, such
as, correction of a name that is clearly misspelled, occupation of the
parents, etc.; but for changes involving the civil status of the
parents, their nationality or citizenship, those are grave and
important matters which may have a bearing and effect on the
citizenship and nationality not only of said parents, but of the
offsprings, and to seek said changes, it is necessary to file a proper
suit wherein not only the State, but also all parties concerned and
affected should be made parties defendants or respondents, and evidence
should be submitted, either to support the allegations of the petition
or complaint, or also to disprove the same so that any order or
decision in the case may be made with due process of law and on the
basis of facts proven. Then and only then may the change or changes be
made in the entry in a civil register that will affect or even
determine conclusively the citizenship or nationality of a person
therein involved.”

The impropriety of the appealed judgment becomes all the more patent
when it is considered that the party whose domicile and citizenship are
sought to be altered, Bartolome E. Baybayan, does not appear to have
been served with a copy of the petition, nor has he appeared in court
to be heard and manifest his conformity or objections. Constitutional
due process requires that he be given opportunity to present his side
of the question, particularly because the petition itself manifests
that the purpose of the correction of the entries sought is “to entitle
said baby boy to a living allowance from his father, Bartolome E.
Baybayan”, i.e., to lay a foundation for future litigation against him.

The order appealed from is reversed, and the petition ordered dismissed. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.