IN THE MATTER OF CORRECTION OF ENTRY IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY OF THE MINOR RUPERT BRYAN LADISLA RICON LILIBETH TY LADISLA, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPP…
DE GUIA-SALVADOR, J.:
The Facts
The record shows that the minor Rupert Bryan Ladisla Ricon was born on December 13, 1987 at the San Juan de Dios Hospital in Pasay City to his unmarried parents, Ramil Ricon and appellee Lilibeth Ty Ladisla. For the ostensible purpose of sparing him from the stigma of illegitimacy, however, appellee told the hospital nurse who prepared said child’s birth certificate that she was married to Ramil Ricon.[2] Despite the fact that the child correspondingly bore his father’s surname in said document,[3] however, it appears that he subsequently used appellee’s surname[4] and came to be known as Rupert Bryan T. Ladisla.
Still single and by then desirous of rectifying the error in her son’s record of birth, appellee commenced the case at bench on January 30, 2002 for the purpose of changing said minor’s filiation from legitimate to illegitimate and his surname from Ricon to Ladisla.[5] Finding the same sufficient in form and substance, the trial court issued the April 1, 2002 order setting the initial hearing of the petition on June 5, 2002 and directing all interested parties to appear and show cause why the petition should not be granted.[6] Aside from being published for three consecutive weeks in the in the Philippine Courier, a newspaper of general circulation in the metropolitan area and nearby provinces,[7] copies of said order were furnished the National Statistics Office, the Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City,[8] the Office of the Pasay City Prosecutor[9] and the Office of the Solicitor General.[10]
Having proved compliance with the jurisdictional requirements at the initial hearing thus scheduled, appellee went on to present evidence in support of the petition at the June 25, 2002 hearing set in the case. On the witness stand, she admitted the circumstances surrounding her son’s birth and her motivations for covering up her illicit relationship with Ramil Ricon. Convinced by appellee’s quest for truthfulness in said child’s documented antecedents,[11] the trial court rendered the appealed July 30, 2002 decision,[12] disposing of the petition in the following wise:
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered granting the PETITION and hereby ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City to correct the Certificate of Live Birth of Rupert Bryan Ladisla Ricon regarding Entry No. 12 Date and Place of Marriage of Parents from AUGUST 17, 1987, CITY HALL, PASAY CITY to NOT MARRIED (ILLEGITIMATE) and to correct and change the last name in Entry No. 1 from RICON to LADISLA of said child, the latter being illegitimate.
SO ORDERED.”[13]
Dissatisfied, the Office of the Solicitor General sought the reconsideration of the foregoing decision on behalf of appellant Republic of the Philippines. Contending that it had belatedly received the notices for the June 5, 2002 initial hearing and the June 25, 2002 setting in the case, the Office of the Solicitor General argued that the corrections sought by appellee were substantial in nature and required adversarial proceedings.[14] With the denial of said motion in the trial court’s March 4, 2002 order,[15] appellant filed its notice of appeal within the reglementary period.[16]
The Issue
Appellant seeks the reversal of the appealed decision on the following ground, to wit:
“THE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE TRIAL COURT AS REGARDS THE CORRECTION OF THE ALLEGED DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF RUPERT BRYAN’S PARENTS FROM “AUGUST 17, 1987, PASAY CITY HALL, PASAY CITY” TO “NOT MARRIED (ILLEGITIMATE)” IN RUPERT BRYAN’S CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH IS SHORT OF THE APPROPRIATE ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 3, RULE 108 OF THE RULES OF COURT.”[17]
The Court’s Ruling
We find the appeal impressed with merit.
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry.[18] Sections 3 through 5 of the self same Rule specifically provides as follows:
“Section 3. Parties. – When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have a claim or any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.”
Section 4. Notice and publication. – Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general publication in the province.
Section 5. Opposition. – The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.”
The proceedings under the aforesaid rule may either be summary or adversary in nature. If the correction sought to be made in the civil register is clerical, then the procedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification, on the other hand, affects the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the procedure to be adopted is adversary. This was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Republic vs. Valencia[19] where it was held that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule 108 provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding, i.e., one where the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the opposite party’s case, and where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered.
Our perusal of the record shows that, to her credit, appellee had attempted to procure the substantial or contentious alterations in her son’s record of birth through adversarial proceedings before the trial court. With notices to the National Statistics Office, the Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City,[20] the Office of the Pasay City Prosecutor[21] and the Office of the Solicitor General,[22] the order setting the petition for initial hearing was likewise duly published in the Philippine Courier.[23] The appealed July 30, 2002 Decision was, in fact, rendered by the trial court on the strength of the evidence adduced by appellee at the June 5, 2002 hearing conducted in the case.[24]
More than the belated receipt by the Office of the Solicitor General of the notices for the hearings in the case, however, we find appellee’s failure to implead indispensable parties to the petition fatal to her cause. Conformably with Section 3, Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, the petition for correction or alteration of entries in the civil registry should implead as respondents not only the civil registrar but also all other persons who may have or may claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby.[25] To our mind, no party would be more interested in the case at bench or greatly affected by the decision rendered by the trial court than the minor Rupert Bryan Ladisla Ricon himself, in whose behalf appellee presumably commenced the case at bench. Without even considering the exclusion of his father, Ramil Ricon, and his paternal grandparents, if any, the fact that said minor was not even named a party to the petition indicate that the proceedings a quo were not sufficiently adversarial as to warrant the changes sought by appellee.
In finding merit in appellant’s arguments in support of the grant of the appeal at bench, we find the following pronouncement the Supreme Court made in the case of Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic,[26] quite instructive, to wit:
“In David vs. Republic, this Court held that where the petition for correction of entries in the civil registry, if granted, will have the effect of changing not only the civil status of the petitioner but as well as her child’s filiation from “legitimate” to “illegitimate,” the same cannot be granted except in an adversary proceeding. The matter should be threshed out in an appropriate action as the corrections involve substantial alterations, and not mere clerical errors. An appropriate proceeding is required wherein all the indispensable parties should be made parties to the case as required under Section 3, Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court. In the case before Us, since only the Office of the Solicitor General was notified through the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, representing the Republic of the Philippines as the only respondent, the proceedings taken, which is summary in nature, is short of what is required in cases where substantial alterations are sought. Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General, all other indispensable parties should have been made respondents. They include not only the declared father of the child but the child as well, together with the paternal grandparents, if any, as their hereditary rights would be adversely affected thereby. All other persons who may be affected by the change should be notified or represented. The truth is best ascertained under an adversary system of justice.” (italics and underscoring supplied)
A petition for correction of entries in the civil registry is, concededly, an action in rem or one brought against a thing and not against a person, such that the decision thereon binds not only the parties thereto but the whole world. The non-inclusion of a party-in-interest had, consequently, been occasionally deemed cured upon compliance with the publication requirement provided under Section 4 of Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court.[27] Unlike in the case at bench, however, the petitioner in said cases were shown to have exerted earnest efforts to bring to court all possible parties interested in the outcome of the petition.[28]
In the absence of showing that all indispensable parties who may be affected by appellee’s petition for correction of her son’s record of birth were impleaded or, at the very least, duly notified and/or properly represented thereat, the proceedings a quo cannot be considered adversarial within the contemplation of the Rules.[29] Indeed, a case does not amount to an adversarial proceeding simply because an opportunity to contest the same was afforded the general public by the publication of the petition.[30] In clarifying the conflicting opinions on the issue of whether substantial corrections of entries in the civil registry can be effected by means of the special proceedings provided under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court in relation to Article 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,[31] it should be borne in mind that the Supreme Court ruled as follows in Lee vs. Court of Appeals,[32] viz:
“xxx xxx xxx (T)his Court’s ruling in Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic[33] does not exclude recourse to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court to effect substantial changes or correction in entries of the civil register. The only requisite is that the proceedings under Rule 108 be an appropriate adversary proceeding as contradistinguished from a summary proceeding. Thus:
‘If the purpose of the petition (for cancellation and/or correction of entries in the civil register) is merely to correct the clerical errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, the court may, under a summary procedure, issue an order for the correction of a mistake. However, as repeatedly construed, changes which may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, as well as sex, are substantial and controversial alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings depending upon the nature of the issues involved. Changes which affect the civil status or citizenship of a party are substantial in character and should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon 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 is submitted to prove the allegations of the complaint, and proof to the contrary admitted xxx” (Italics supplied)
It is true that in special proceedings formal pleadings and a hearing may be dispensed with, and the remedy granted upon mere application or motion. But this is not always the case, as when the statute expressly provides. Hence a special proceeding is not always summary. One only has to take a look at the procedure outlined in Rule 108 to see that what is contemplated therein is not a summary proceeding per se. Rule 108 requires publication of the petition three (3) times, i.e., once a week for three consecutive weeks (Sec. 4). The Rule also requires inclusion as parties of all persons who claim any interest which would be affected by the cancellation or correction (Sec. 3). The civil registrar and any person in interest are also required to file their opposition, if any, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition or from the last date of publication of such notice (Sec. 5). Last, but not the least, although the court may make orders expediting the proceedings, it is after hearing that the court shall either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting the same (Sec. 7).”[34] (italics supplied)
WHEREFORE, the appealed July 30, 2002 Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, another is entered ordering the DISMISSAL of appellee’s petition for non-compliance with Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, (Chairman) and Roxas, JJ., concur.
[1] pp. 24-27, Orig. Rec.
[2] pp. 15-23, ibid., TSN, June 25, 2002.
[3] Exhibit “J”, p. 5, Orig. Rec.
[4] Exhibit “K”, p. 6, ibid.
[5] Exhibit “A”, pp. 2-4, ibid.
[6] Exhibit “B” and submarkings, pp. 7-8, ibid.
[7] Exhibits “F”, “G’, “H”, “I” and submarkings, pp.
[8] Exhibit “E” and submarking, p. 8-E, ibid.
[9] Exhibit “D” and submarking, p. 8-D, ibid.
[10] Exhibit “C” and submarking, p. 8-B, ibid.
[11] pp. 15-23, ibid., TSN, June 25, 2002.
[12] pp. 24-27, Orig. Rec.
[13] p. 27, ibid.
[14] pp. 29-37, ibid.
[15] pp. 49-51, ibid.
[16] pp. 52-54, ibid.
[17] pp. 18-19, Rollo.
[18] Republic vs. Benemerito, 425 SCRA 488, 491.
[19] 121 SCRA 462.
[20] Exhibit “E” and submarking, p. 8-E, ibid.
[21] Exhibit “D” and submarking, p. 8-D, ibid.
[22] Exhibit “C” and submarking, p. 8-B, ibid.
[23] Exhibits “F”, “G’, “H”, “I” and submarkings, pp.
[24] pp. 15-23, ibid.
[25] Republic vs. Benemerito, supra, p. 492.
[26] 168 SCRA 294.
[27] Barco vs. Court of Appeals, January 20, 2004.
[28] Spouses Ceruila vs. Delantar, G.R. No. 140305, December 9, 2005.
[29] Ceruila vs. Delantar, G.R. No. 104678, December 9, 2005.
[30] Republic vs. Benemerito, supra, p. 492.
[31] “Article 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without a judicial order.”
[32] 367 SCRA 110.
[33] 168 SCRA 294.
[34] Lee vs. Court of Appeals, supra, pp. 128-129.