CANDIDA REYES, IN HER OWN BEHALF AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM; EDGARDO SO, RENATO SO, ROMEO REYES SO, ALL MINORS, AND SO YONG GA, PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. THE REPUBLIC OF THE…

BENGZON, C.J.:

In the Court of First Instance of Manila, appellants filed against appellees,
particularly the Civil Registrar of Manila, Special Civil Case No. 40166 wherein
it is alleged among other things that Candida Reyes is a Filipino citizen; that
Edgardo So, Renato So and Romeo So, were born to her outside of wedlock with
petitioner So Yong Ga, a Chinese subject; that in such circumstances, said minor
children are citizens of the Philippines; and that they were erroneously
entered as Chinese citizens in the civil register of Manila. Wherefore,
petitioners prayed that the said entries be ordered corrected.

Upon appellees’ motion to dismiss on the ground that it stated no cause of
action, the petition was dismissed; and a motion for reconsideration was
denied.

Petitioners appealed to this Court, excepting to the order of dismissal.

They argue now that Article 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines under
which they sought relief ^[1] makes no
distinction whatsoever as to the kind of errors which may he corrected in a
civil register; that the only condition precedent to such correction is that
there should be a corresponding judicial order; that where mere clerical errors
are sought to be corrected, such correction may be authorized by means of a
summary proceeding; that the instant petition is in faithful compliance with the
“appropriate action” contemplated and suggested by this Court in various
cases ^[2] decided on the same issue; that
as shown by the petition, the parties involved, namely, the parents and children
as petitioners and the Republic of the Philippines and the Civil Register as
respondents, were included therein; and as alleged in paragraph 6 thereof, the
Philippine citizenship of minor children may be established by adequate
evidence.

In our view, the instant action seeks a declaration of Philippine citizenship
of some minor children. And we have invariably held ^[3], only mistakes that are clerical in
nature may be ordered corrected under Article 412 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines. The procedure contemplated under this provision of law is summary
in nature.

If the petition, on the other hand pursues the correction of entries that are
substantial, the erroneous entry may be corrected by the Court by means of a
proper action according to the nature of the issues in controversy and
wherein all the parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or
represented and evidence submitted to prove the allegations of the complaint,
and proof to the contrary admitted.^[4]

The case before us is not of first impression. We have repeatedly declared
that in this jurisdiction, the remedy Sought in the instant petition cannot be
granted in the manner desired. While ostensibly, the action seeks a mere
correction of an entry in the Civil Registry, in effect, it requests the
judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship. Many such cases, this Court has
dismissed. We have clearly stated time and again, that declaratory relief is not
available for the purpose of obtaining a judicial declaration of citizenship.

It may be stated at this juncture that Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides for the cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry
relating to civil status. Any person interested in any act, event, order or
decree concerning the civil status of persons Which has been recorded in the
Civil Registry, may file a Verified petition for the cancellation or correction
of any entry relating thereto. The entries which may be cancelled or corrected
are specifically enumerated.^[5] While
“birth” is mentioned as one of the entries that may be corrected or cancelled,
this includes only such particulars as are attendant to birth. Other details,
such as nationality or citizenship arc not included. Rule 108 also covers
citizenship but only as regards its election, loss or recovery. But this
certainly has no relevance to the instant petition, which, as hitherto stated,
seeks a judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship.^[6]

For the reasons indicated, the order appealed from is affirmed with costs
against petitioners.

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L.,
Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J. P. and Zaldivar, JJ.
concur.

---

^[1] Article 412 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines “No entry in a civil register shall he changed or corrected, without
judicial order.”
^[2] Ansaldo
vs. Republic, L-10226, Feb. 14, 1958; Ty Kong Ting Republic, 50 Off.
Gaz. No. 3, p. 1077 (and several others).
^[3] Beduya vs. Republic L-17639, May 29,
1964; De Castro vs. Republic, L-174321, April 30, 1963.
^[4] Lui Lin vs. Republic, L-18213, Dec.
24, 1963: also cases cited above.
^[5]
Sec. 2 (Rule 108) 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) marriage; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations;(e)
judgment of annulment of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from
beginning; (g) legitimations; (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.
^[6]. “At times the law permits the acquisition of a
given status such as naturalization bu judicial decree. But, there is ni similar
legislation authorizing the institution of a judicial proceedings to declare
that a given person is part of our citizenry.” (Tan vs. Republic,
L-14159, April 18, 1960; Tan Yu Chin vs. Republic, L-15775, April 29,
1961; Felista Tan vs. Republic, L-16108, October 31, 1961.)