JUSTO BALETE, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

Julio
Balete filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Rizal
seeking the correction of certain names and entries made in the Civil
Registry of Manila in connection with the birth certificates of his
children Kie Hua C. Balete, Siu Bee Balete, and Joaquin Cu Kie San.
This petition was later amended by making the Civil Registrar of Manila
party respondent.

After the local civil registrar had filed
his answer, the lower court ordered the publication of the amended
petition in the Daily Mirror. Thereafter, the Solicitor General and the
City Fiscal made of record their appearance and each filed a motion to
dismiss invoking as common ground that the amended petition is not
proper in view: of the fact that it seeks to correct entries in the
civil registry which affect the citizenship of the parties concerned
while it avers other controversial matters which cannot be passed upon
in a summary proceeding but should be threshed out in a separate
appropriate action.

Petitioner filed a reply to the motion to
dismiss insisting on the propriety of the action he has taken adding
that since he prayed that he be declared a Filipino citizen his
petition may be considered as one for declaratory relief under Section
1, Rule 66, of the Rules of Court. The government filed a rejoinder
stating that a petition for declaratory relief is not the proper remedy
for declaration of citizenship but one for naturalization with an
alternative prayer for declaration of status as a Filipino citizen.
Petitioner filed a rejoinder setting forth therein his arguments.

On
the basis of the pleadings submitted by both parties the lower court
issued an order dismissing the petition on the main ground that the
same has not been filed by the persons whose birth certificates are
involved and that the changes sought to be made are substantial in
nature which should be threshed out in a separate action.

Petitioner
has appealed and the case is now before us in view of the certification
made by the Court of Appeals that the questions involved are purely of
law.

The corrections which petitioner seeks to be made in the
Civil Registry of Manila in connection with the birth certificates of
his children are as follows:

“1. In the
Birth Certificate of Kie Hua C. Balete, a natural child of petitioner
Justo Balete—(a) Father’s citizenship— from ‘Chinese’ to ‘Filipino’

2. In the Birth Certificate of Siu Bee Balete, another natural child of petitioner—

(a) Father’s citizenship—from ‘Chinese Mestizo’ to ‘Filipino’
(b) Father’s birthplace—from ‘Bulacan, Tondo, Manila’ to ‘Malolos, Bulacan’

3. In the Birth Certificate of Joaquin Cu Kie San, also a natural child of petitioner—

(a) Father’s name—from ‘Justo Balete alias Cu Bun Jin’ to ‘Justo Balete’ only.
(b) Father’s citizenship—from ‘Chinese’ to ‘Filipino’
(c) Father’s birth place—from ‘Amoy, China’ to Malolos, Bulacan’
(d) Father’s religion—from ‘Budhist’ to ‘Protestant’.”

It should be noted that the changes which petitioner wants to introduce
in the civil registry, among others, are: the citizenship of Justo
Balete from Chinese to Filipino, or from Chinese mestizo to Filipino,
or from Justo Balete alias Cu Bun Jin to Justo Balete only.
And as to petitioner’s birth place, the changes to be made are: from
Tondo, Manila to Malolos, Bulacan, or from Amoy, China to Malolos,
Bulacan. As may be reckoned with, these changes are not merely clerical
but substantial in the sense that they affect the status of petitioner
Justo Balete. The other changes are also material because they involve
a change of residence. These changes cannot be done in a proceeding of
this character as held by this Court in the case of Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic, 94 Phil., 321; 50 Off. Gaz., [3] 1077, from which we quote:

“*
* * 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.”

With
regard to the appropriate action that may be taken to accomplish the
objective sought by petitioner, we already stated that “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” (Ty
Kong Tin vs. Republic, supra). Indeed, this
statement appears somewhat sweeping and general, but this uncertainty
will not be long, for our Rules of Court containing new amendments and
changes in line with the provisions of the new Civil Code will soon be
released wherein a procedure for the correction of material errors that
may appear in the civil register,is prescribed. Such step is necessary
in order to dispel once and for all the prevailing uncertainty relative
to the implementation of Article 412 of the new Civil Code.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, without costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.