REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO ORIENTAL AND SAMUEL YU, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of
the Republic of the Philippines for the review of the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Davao Oriental, 16th Judicial
District, at Mati, in the case entitled:  “In the Matter of the Petition to
Correct the Registration of the Record of Birth of Samuel Yu in the Local Civil
Registry of the Municipality of Baganga, Davao Oriental; Samuel Yu, a minor, represented by Cresencia B. Bual, his mother and
natural guardian, peti­tioner versus the Local Civil Registrar of the
Municipality of Baganga, Davao
Oriental and Yu Se Guan, respondents,” the dispositive
portion of which is as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby directs the Local Civil Registrar of Baganga, Davao Oriental to
correct the entries in the Record of Birth of Petitioner, Samuel Yu, by
crossing out the word “Chinese” and inserting therein the word
“Filipino” as his nationality, and also by crossing out the word
“legitimate” and inserting therein the word “illegitimate”
as his status, and to furnish a copy of Certificate of Live Birth of Samuel Yu
as corrected, the Office of the Civil Registrar General, Bureau of Census and
Statistics in Manila.”^[1]

It appears from the records of this case that on April 30, 1968, Samuel Yu,
represented by his mother and natural guardian, filed in the Court of First
Instance of Davao Oriental, a petition for correction
of registration alleging inter alia
that:

“4)  That without the benefit of lawful wedlock,
Petitioner’s mother and natural guardian has been cohabiting with, and as the
common-law wife of, respondent Yu Se Guan, alias “Johnny Yu”, a
Chinese national, and out of their said common-law cohabitation, the following
children were born on the dates and at
the places respectively set, to wit:

a)     
Jeffrey Yu     -May 5, 1955-Candijay, Bohol

b)     
Bailey Yu      -May 8, 1957-Cebu City

c)     
Emily Yu       -May 10, 1959-Cebu City

d)     
Samuel Yu   -Aug. 26, 1960-Baganga, Davao

e)     
Carolina
Yu  -June 11, 1963-Cebu City

“5)  That in the registration of the birth of your
Petitioner in the Local Civil Registry of the Municipality of Baganga, Province of Davao (now Davao Oriental), your Petitioner’s nationality or
citizenship was erroneously recorded as “Chinese” and his status as
“legitimate” child of Petitioner’s natural guardian and respondent Yu
Se Guan, as may be shown by the attached true copy of a certified true and
correct extract of the Register of Birth issued by the respondent Local Civil
Registrar of Baganga, Davao
Oriental, which true copy is
incorporated herein as Annex “A” hereof;

“6)  That the truth of the matter is that your
Petitioner is an illegitimate child of his natural guardian-herein
representative with respondent Yu Se Guan, he having been born outside of the
lawful wedlock and during the common-law cohabitation of his aforesaid parents;

“7)  That the error in the registration of the
citizenship and status of your Peti­tioner resulted from the misconception or
misapprehension by respondent Yu Se Guan, who furnished the data of the
registration, that his common-law cohabitation with Petitioner’s mother and
natural guardian conferred upon the children born during their said
cohabitation legitimate status and Chinese citizenship, following the citizenship of their Chinese father, said respondent
Yu Se Guan;”^[2]

Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the
Court a quo issued an order on April 30, 1968 setting the hearing
of the case on June 6, 1968 at 8:30 a.m.; directing that a copy of the said
order be published
at the expense of the petitioner in the Mindanao Mirror, a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and province of Davao
Oriental, once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks; and informing all
persons against the petition to file their opposition on or before the date of
the hearing.  In compliance with this
order, peti­tioner Yu caused the same to be published on May 2, 9 and 16, 1968.

On the date of the hearing, petitioner Yu, through counsel,
presented Valerio P. Diaz, the Local Civil Registrar
of Baganga, Davao Oriental,
who testified by virtue of a subpoena duces
tecum on the record of birth of petitioner as
appearing in the registry book of births for the year 1960 as well as on the
absence of the record of marriage of Cresencia B. Bual and Yu Se Guan in the registry book of marriages under
his custody.  Likewise, he presented both
of his parents who testified to the fact that they are not legally married and
that February 20, 1954, the
supposed date of their marriage as appearing in the record of birth of
petitioner is merely the date when they began living together as husband and
wife.

On the basis of these evidence which the
lower court found to have been uncontroverted, the
petition was granted.  Hence, this
instant petition for review on certiorari of the Solicitor General
assigning these errors:

I

The lower court erred in
granting the petition despite the fact that the change of citizenship
and status applied for is not within the purview of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

II

The lower court erred in ordering the correction of the entry in
the Record of Birth of Samuel Yu with regards to his nationality or citizenship
from Chinese to Filipino and the indication therein of his status as illegitimate on the basis of the lack of record in the Civil Registry of the
marriage of his parents, Cresencia B. Bual and Yu Se Guan and the latter’s self-serving testimony
of cohabitation as common-law husband and wife without the benefit of
lawful wedlock.^[3]

We must reverse the judgment under review.

Deeply entrenched and unswervingly followed in this jurisdiction is
the rule that changes in the citizenship of a person or in his status from
legitimate to illegitimate are substantial as well as controversial and may not
therefore be changed pursuant to Article 412 of the New Civil Code.  Neither may these changes be effected under
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court which only prescribes the judicial
procedure on the matter and which, moreover, limits the entries subject to can­cellation
or correction to those enumerated in Section 2 thereof.

Article 412 of the New
Civil Code provides:  “No entry in
the civil register shall be changed or corrected, without a judicial
order.” Since the case of Ty Kong Tin
vs. Republic,^[4] a 1954 case, this legal provision has been
invariably interpreted as an authority for the Court to direct the correction
of mistakes that are clerical in nature, i.e. those harmless and innocuous
changes, such as, correction of a name that is clearly misspelled, occu­pation
of the parents, etc.^[5] or those that are visible to the eyes or
obvious to the understanding or “an error made by a
clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing.”^[6] It does not extend to important
controversial matters, such as those which affect the civil status or the
nationality or citizenship of the persons involved.  Such matters should be threshed out in appro­priate
actions wherein not only the State but also all persons who may be affected by
such change should be noti­fied or represented. 
Looking into the reason for this rule, this Court held in Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic^[7] and reiterated in Go vs. Civil Registrar
of the Municipality of Malabon,^[8] that:

“xxx xxx xxx
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 therein 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 the 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)”

Rule 108 is the procedural law on the matter of cancellation or
correction of entries in the civil register. 
As such, it cannot be distinct and separable from Article 412 of the New
Civil Code.  Much less can it enlarge the judicial power under
said substantive law. 
As vividly set forth in the exhaustive opinion of this Court in Chua
Wee vs. Republic,^[9]
and quoted with approval in Uy vs. Local
Civil Registrar of the City of Cebu,^[10]
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is limited solely to the implementation of Article 412:

“From the time the New Civil Code took effect on August 30,
1950 until the promulgation of the Revised Rules of Court on January 1, 1964,
there was no law nor rule of court prescribing the procedure to secure judicial
authorization to effect the desired innocuous rectifications or alterations in
the civil register pursuant to Article 412 of the New Civil Code.  Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court now
provides for such procedure which should be limited solely to the
implementation of Article 412, the substantive law on the matter of correcting
entries in the civil register.  Rule 108,
like all other provisions of the Rules of Court, was
promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making authority under Section 13 of Art. VIII
of the Constitution, which directs that such rules of court “shall not
diminish or increase or modify substantive rights.” If Rule 108
were to be extended beyond innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of
errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, so as to
comprehend substantial and controversial alterations concerning citizenship,
legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy
of marriage, said Rule 108 would thereby become unconstitutional for it would
be increasing or modifying substantive rights, which changes are not authorized
under Article 412 of the Civil Code.”

The statement of private respondent in his answer to this instant petition for review that his
petition before the court a quo was filed NOT under Article 412
of the New Civil Code BUT in accordance with the new provisions of Rule 108 of
the Revised Rules of Court^[11]
is thus, patently erroneous.  Such view
has apparently been influenced by the cases of Baybayan
vs. Republic,^[12]
Uy Sioco Nacague Tan, et al. vs. Republic,^[13]
and Domingo Dy Oliva vs.
Republic^[14]
is implying the applica­bility of Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court to substantial and controversial
entries in the civil register.  But this view
is oblivious of the numerous cases decided prior to the aforementioned three
cases, as well as sub­sequently, reaffirming the continuing validity of the
doctrines interpreting Article 412 of the New Civil Code even after the
promulgation of the Revised Rules of Court. 
These are the cases of Beduya vs. Republic,^[15]
Lim vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila,^[16]
Lee vs. Hian Tiu and the
Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City,^[17]
Chua Tan Chuan vs. Republic,^[18]
Chan Cin vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila,^[19]
and Tan Pong vs. Republic^[20]
where, notwithstanding the compliance with the requirement of notice and
publication under Section 4, Rule 108 of
the Revised Rules of Court, the proceedings therein were not dissociated from
Article 412 of the New Civil Code.  In
the language of this Court in Dy En Sui Co vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila:^[21]

“The firmness and consistency shown by this Court in rejecting
resort to proceedings of this character is thus unmistakable.  Any attempt as was done in the well-written
brief of appellants to exclude this action from the operation of such a
well-settled principle on the ground that it could be distinguished, while not
implausible, cannot be allowed to succeed. 
What cannot be denied is that their plea, as noted in the order, is for
change of a citizenship through the correction in the data appearing in the
Office of the Local Civil Registrar. 
Essentially then the proceeding cannot be dissociated from that contemplated under Article 412 of
the Civil Code.  It is in that sense that
deference to the aforesaid decisions, impressive for their number and unanimity
precludes a reversal of the lower court order.”

To dispel whatever doubt that the cases of Baybayan
vs. Republic, Uy Sioco Nacague Tan, et al. vs. Republic and Domingo Dy Oliva vs. Republic might have
created, this Court was prompted to issue this statement in Chua Wee vs.
Republic:^[22]

“Statements in the cases of Baybayan
vs. Republic, Uy Sioco Nacague Tan vs. Republic and Dy Oliva vs. Republic intimating the applicability of Rule 108
of the Revised Rules of Court to substantial and controversial alterations of entries in the civil register, should
be considered obiter dicta because the petitions in said cases
for substantial and controversial corrections were filed under Art. 412 of the Civil Code. 
Such dicta should be deemed revoked by the ruling in the
subsequent cases of Beduya, Lee, Dy
En Sui Co, Chua Tan Chuan, Chan Chin and Tan Pong,
supra.”

From then on, the consolidated cases under the main titles of Go
vs. Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Malabon, Rizal^[23]
and Uy vs. Local Civil Registrar of the City of Cebu^[24]
as well as the later case of Republic vs. Amores,^[25] all similarly enunciated a rule that leave no room for doubt that only
“clerical errors of a harmless or innocuous nature,” not those
“involving civil status, nationality or citizenship, which are substantial
and/or controversial,” may be corrected under the provisions of said
Article 412 of the New Civil Code, in relation to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules
of Court.

As pointed out by the Solicitor General in this petition, the
erroneous reliance of private respondent on Rule 108 to effect the desired
changes in his citizenship is further shown by Section 2 of the said rule
itself.  Section 2 provides:

“SEC. 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) marriage; (c) deaths; (d)
legal separations; (e) judgments of annulments 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) change of name.”

Clearly evident from the foregoing provision is that the change
of citizenship urged by private respondent upon the lower court does not fall
within its purview.  Changes in
citizenship are limited only to election, loss or recovery thereof.  The scope of
this section has been explained in Reyes vs. Republic^[26] and reaffirmed in Chua Wee
vs. Republic:^[27]

“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.  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 are 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.”

In resume, the fatal infirmity of the petition does not lie on
the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence presented by
private respondent to prove his citizenship and status nor on the question of
whether or not there is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Rule 108
of the Revised Rules of Court but on the impropriety of the said rule itself as
the remedy to effect the change of citizenship and status.  Thus, We deem it
unnecessary to discuss the Solicitor General’s second assignment of error which
questions the suffi­ciency of the evidence regarding the absence of marriage of
the parents of private respondent.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao Oriental, 16th Judicial District, at Mati, allowing the correction of the entries in the Record
of Birth of Samuel Yu, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Fernandez, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ.,
concur.

Teehankee, (Chairman), J., in the result.

De Castro, J., no part.

^[1]
Rollo, p.
77.

^[2]
Record on
Appeal, pp. 2-3.

^[3]
Brief for Petitioner, pp. 1-2.

^[4]
94 Phil. 321.

^[5]
Ansaldo vs. Republic, 102 Phil. 1046.

^[6]
Black vs. Republic, 104 Phil.
848.

^[7]
supra.

^[8]
39 SCRA 350.

^[9]
38 SCRA 409.

^[10]
46 SCRA 1.

^[11]
Rollo, p. 33.

^[12]
16 SCRA 403.

^[13]
16 SCRA 697.

^[14]
20 SCRA 1070.

^[15]
11 SCRA 109.

^[16]
22 SCRA 876.

^[17]
23 SCRA 211.

^[18]
27 SCRA 447.

^[19]
29 SCRA 448.

^[20]
30 SCRA 380.

^[21]
24 SCRA 309.

^[22]
supra.

^[23]
supra.

^[24]
46 SCRA 1; where the case of Bual
vs. The Local Civil Registrar of Candijay, Bohol involving herein private respondent’s brother,
Jeffrey Yu, was jointly decided.

^[25]
49 SCRA 361.

^[26]
12 SCRA 376.

^[27]
supra.