REVILLA LATAUAN MARTIN CARTA, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF TUAO, CAGAYAN, RESPONDENT,

Revilla Latauan Martin Carta versus the Local Civil Registrar of Tuao, Cagayan

The Case

This is a petition for the correction of a wrong entry in the civil registry, brought by Revilla Latauan Martin Carta against the Local Civil Registrar of Tuao, Cagayan. Carta asked the court to change the date of birth recorded in her Certificate of Live Birth from November 8, 1975 to October 20, 1975. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed her, and the case reached the Supreme Court on appeal. The case matters because it settles two questions every reviewee must know: first, whether a correction of this kind belongs to the courts under Rule 108 or to the civil registrar under Republic Act No. 9048 as amended by Republic Act No. 10172; and second, whether a baptismal certificate, long treated as hearsay on matters of paternity and filiation, may be admitted to prove a correct date of birth.

Procedural History

Carta filed her petition for correction of a wrong entry of date of birth before the Regional Trial Court of Tuao, Cagayan, Branch Eleven. The Office of the Solicitor General appeared for the Republic and deputized the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cagayan to attend the hearings. After Carta complied with the jurisdictional requirements, she was allowed to present her evidence ex parte before the clerk of court. The trial court granted the petition and ordered the Local Civil Registrar of Tuao, Cagayan to correct her Certificate of Live Birth, particularly her date of birth, from November 8, 1975 to October 20, 1975.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a notice of appeal. In its appellant's brief, it argued that the trial court erred in allowing the correction despite insufficient evidence, that a certificate of baptism is not a public document and is not prima facie evidence of the facts stated in it, and that the other documents had no direct correlation with the alleged correct date of birth. Carta answered that she had presented sufficient evidence and invoked Republic Act No. 10172, which allows a baptismal certificate and other documents issued by religious authorities as evidence. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which decided the case through its Third Division.

Facts

Carta claims that she is the biological daughter of Spouses Cecilio Martin and Virginia Latauan, and that she was born on October 20, 1975. What appears in her Certificate of Live Birth, however, is November 8, 1975. She has long known October 20, 1975 to be her real date of birth and has consistently used it.

To prove the error, she presented her Certificate of Baptism, her Certificate of Marriage, her Social Security System personal data record, and her Certificate of Compensation Payment and Tax Withheld, the BIR Form 2316. She also testified that the discrepancy arose because her mother's date of marriage is November 8, 1975, and that she has used October 20, 1975 since she reached the age of reason. She identified Ricardo Martin, the grandfather who brought her Certificate of Live Birth to the Local Civil Registrar, as already deceased.

The provincial prosecutor who appeared for the Republic did not refute her testimony. On the evidence, the trial court granted the petition, and the Republic appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error in granting the petition for correction of date of birth and in ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Tuao, Cagayan to correct Carta's Certificate of Live Birth from November 8, 1975 to October 20, 1975.
• Whether or not a baptismal certificate may be admitted as evidence to prove the correct date of birth in a petition for correction of an entry in the civil registry.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 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) marriages; (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) changes of name.

This is the rule that governs the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry by judicial order, and it is the procedural basis of Carta's petition.

Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9048, as amended, provides:

No petition for correction of erroneous entry concerning the date of birth or the sex of a person shall be entertained except if the petition is accompanied by earliest school record or earliest school documents such as, but not limited to, medical records, baptismal certificate and other documents issued by religious authorities; nor shall any entry involving change of gender corrected except if the petition is accompanied by a certification issued by an accredited government physician attesting to the fact that the petitioner has not undergone sex change or sex transplant. The petition for change of first name or nickname, or for correction of erroneous entry concerning the day and month in the date of birth or the sex of a person, as the case may be, shall be published at least once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.

This provision expressly allows a baptismal certificate as a supporting document, which bears directly on the admissibility of Carta's evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal is without merit and affirmed the trial court. It began by distinguishing the two remedies. Under Republic Act No. 9048, as amended, the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general may correct a clerical or typographical error, or change a first name or nickname, without a judicial order. But the Court, quoting its earlier ruling in Republic versus Benemerito, explained that this law contemplates only clerical or typographical errors, while Rule 108 involves substantial changes. The Court noted that Carta sought the change by judicial order although it could have been corrected administratively, but this did not make the trial court's action erroneous.

On the evidence, the Court held that a birth certificate is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth, and that to overthrow the presumption in its favor, convincing evidence of its inaccuracy must be presented. That presumption is disputable and yields to more positive evidence. The Court found that Carta's Certificate of Baptism, Certificate of Marriage, Social Security System record, and BIR Form 2316 supported her claim, reasoning that it defies logic for her to use October 20, 1975 if it were not true, especially since these are official public documents in which falsehood is punishable by law. It also found her testimony straightforward and credible, and noted that the Republic had not shown that the correction would prejudice third persons or the State.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that a baptismal certificate is hearsay. It held that the old rule against the baptismal certificate cannot impede the correction of an erroneous date of birth, because Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9048, as amended, expressly allows it as evidence. The Court reasoned that if the law allows a baptismal certificate as a supporting document in administrative correction, all the more reason the court should not discriminate against it. It added that the rulings against the baptismal certificate relate to cases involving paternity and filiation, not to correction of date of birth.

Doctrine

First, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court governs substantial changes and corrections in the civil registry, while Republic Act No. 9048, as amended, covers only clerical or typographical errors and changes of first name or nickname, which may be corrected administratively without a judicial order.

Second, a certificate of birth is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth, but the presumption of regularity is disputable and yields to convincing evidence of inaccuracy.

Third, a baptismal certificate is admissible to prove the correct date of birth in a correction proceeding, because Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9048, as amended, allows it as a supporting document; the rulings against it apply to paternity and filiation, not to correction of date of birth.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tuao, Cagayan, Branch Eleven, was affirmed, so Carta won and the correction of her date of birth from November 8, 1975 to October 20, 1975 was sustained.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that if the law allows a baptismal certificate in administrative correction, all the more reason the court should not discriminate against it in a judicial correction of date of birth. Examiners like to use this case to test the boundary between Rule 108 and Republic Act No. 9048, and the admissibility of a baptismal certificate in civil registry corrections.