G.R. No. L-19847. April 29, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE CORRECTION OF CERTAIN ENTRIES IN THE REGISTER OF BIRTHS OF OZAMIS CITY GUADALUPE UY SIOCO NACAGUE TAN AS NATURAL GUARDIAN OF LORETA, TERESITA, CORAZON, ALMA…
REGALA, J.:
a decision of the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental, on questions of law.
Appellees filed in the lower court a petition for
the correction of certain entries in the civil register
of Ozamiz City. Their petition alleged:
“1. That Guadalupe Uy Sioco Nacague Tan is
the mother of the above-named petitioners, and
she herself is a citizen of the Philippines as
shown by the certificate of the Division of
Archives at the City of Manila which is marked
as Annex “A” hereof;“2. That petitioner Loreta Nacagui Tan was
born to the above-named Guadalupe Uy Sioco Naca-
gue Tan by her husband Cokoc (alias Tan Sin Guan)
at Ozamiz City on March 20, 1947, but her name
is mistakenly recorded as Loreta Tan Suat Ching,
and her mother is erroneously recorded as Guadalupe Ong, a Chinese Citizen;“3. That petitioner Teresita Nacagui Tan
was born on Oct. 15, 1948 to the same spouses
at Ozamiz City but her name is erroneously recorded as Teresita Tan Suta Tin, and her mother
as Guadalupe Ong, a Chinese citizen;“4. That petitioner Corazon Nacagui Tan was
born on Sept. 1, 1950 to the same spouses at
Ozamiz City, but her name is erroneously recorded as Bi Ling Corazon Tan, and her mother as
Guadalupe Uy, a Chinese citizen;“5. That petitioner Alma Nacague Tan was
born on June 9, 1954 to the same spouses at
Ozamiz City, but her mother is erroneously recorded as being a Chinese citizen;“6. That petitioner Rosalina Nacague Tan
was born on October 13, 1956 to the same parents,
but her mother is erroneously recorded as a citizen of China;“7. That petitioner Victor (Tan Giok Cheng)
N. Tan was born on March 23, 1958 but her mother’s
citizenship is erroneously recorded as Chinese;“8.
That the errors in the records of birth of the above-named petitioners
will cause great inconvenience to them and will especially prejudice
them when they would already elect Philippine citizenship for which
they are qualified and which they contemplate on doing;“WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed
of this Honorable Court that the proper corrections be made on the records of births of the
above-named petitioners in the Registry of Births
Of the City of Ozamiz as above indicated.”
Barely four days after the filing of the petition,
without previous hearing and/or publication, the lower
court, thru the then Justice of the Peace of Oroquieta
Misamis Occidental, in the absence of the District Judge
who was then on vacation, issued an order granting the
petition and, accordingly ordered the civil registrar “to make the proper corrections as above indicated in the
names of the petitioners (appellees herein) appearing in
the Registry of Births of the said City and in the name
and citizenship of their mother, which should be Guadalupe
Uy, a Filipino citizen.”
Upon
learning of this order, the city fiscal asked the court for a
reconsideration on the ground that appellees’ petition was not
published and that article 412 of the Civil Code authorizes the
correction only of clerical errors, not errors involving substantial
matters, such as citizenship. Acting on the city fiscal’s motion for
reconsideration, the said court, with now the District Judge presiding,
set aside the order. However, the court reversed itself again when the
appellees in turn asked for a reconsideration. In its modified order of
February 10, 1962, the court directed that the name of appellee
Guadalupe Uy Sioco Nacague Tan, which appears as “Guadalupe Ong” in the
birth records of appellees Loreta Tan Suat Ching and Teresita Tan Suat
Tin, be changed to “Guadalupe Uy ” It is from this order that the
Solicitor General, in representation of the Government, appealed. His
position is that the change from
“Guadalupe Ong” to “Guadalupe Uy” cannot be made in a summary
proceeding under article 412 of the Civil Code because the alleged
error is not a mere clerical error.
Article 412 of the Civil Code provides that “no entry
in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without
a judicial order.”
Interpreting this provision, this Court held in the
case of Ansaldo vs. Republic, 102 Phil., 1046:
“For the information of the parties concerned
and for the guidance of the public in general, we
may venture the opinion that the clerical errors
which might be corrected through judicial sanction under Article 412 of the Civil Code, would
be those harmless and innocuous changes, such as
correction of a name that is clearly misspelled,
occupation of the parents, etc. but for changes
involving the civil status of the parentst their
nationality or citizenship, those are grave and
important matters which may have a bearing and
effect on the citizenship and nationality not only of said parents, but of the offsprings, and to
seek said changes, it is necessary to file a proper
suit wherein not only the State, but also all parties concerned and affected should be made parties
defendants or respondents, and evidence should be
submitted, either to support the allegations of the
petition or complaint, or also to disprove the
same so that any order or decision in the case may
be made with due process of law and on the basis
of facts proven,” (Italics supplied)
In the present case, no less than the lower court itself, in its first order, has observed that the mother of
the petitioners was recorded as Guadalupe Ong, a Chinese
citizen but that her name should be corrected to Guadalupe
Uy, a citizen of the Philippines. This shows that in petitioning for the correction of the entries of their names,
it is also the intention of petitioners to make it appear
that their mother is not a Chinese but a Filipino. This
correction cannot be allowed in a summary proceeding, following our ruling in the abovecited case of Ansaldo vs. Republic, supra, because it involves the citizenship of petitioner’s mother, a grave and important matter, which will
eventually have a bearing on the citizenship of her child-
ren. To allow such a correction would set wide open the
door to fraud or other mischief the consequences of which
might be detrimental or far reaching, (Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic, 94 Phil. 321)
In the most recent case on the subject, Consuelo Calicdan Baybayan vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-20717, March 18, 1966,
where the correction sought concerns place of birth and
citizenship, this Court, reiterating the ruling in the Ansaldo case, thru Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, stated:
“* * * It has been the uniform jurisprudence
of this Court since Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic
(1954) 94 Phil. 321, that substantial alterations,
such as those affecting the status and citizenship of a person in the Civil Registry records,
can not be ordered by the court unless first
threshed out in an ‘appropriate action wherein
all parties who may be affected by the entries
are notified or represented’ (see Rule 108 of
the Revised Rules of Court), and that the summary proceedings under Article 412 of the Civil
Code only justify an order to corrects innocuous
or clerical errors such as misspellings and the
like, errors that are visible to the eyes or
obvious to the understanding (Black vs. Republic,
L-10869, Nov. 28, 1958; Ansaldo vs. Republic,
L-10226, Feb. 14, 1958; Tan Su vs. Republic, L-
12140, April 29, 1959; Bentoto vs. Republic, L-14978, May 23, 1961; De Castro vs. Republic, L-
17431, April 30, 1963; Lui Lin vs. Republic, L-
18213, Dec. 24, 1963).”
It
follows that since the correction contemplated in this case does not
refer merely to clerical errors, a summary proceeding would not be
sufficient. Instead, petitioners should file a petition as that
provided for under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court,[1] section 4 of
which requires notice and publication, as in change of
nones, as follows:
“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
circulation in the province.”
Referring to a similar provision under Article 103 of
the Revised Rules of Court, we have explained in Jesus Ng
Yao Siong vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-20306, March 31, 1966,
that “publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object ‘to bar indifferently all who
night be minded to make an objection of any sort against
the right sought to be established’.”
It being apparent from the foregoing that the order
of the lower court is not in accordance with the rule
applicable in the premises, the same is hereby reversed,
and consequently the petition is dismissed. No costs.
Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
[1] This is a new provision.