G.R. No. L-27159. September 17, 1969
IN THE MATTER OF THE CORRECTION OF CERTAIN ENTRIES IN THE BIRTH RECORDS OF THE MINORS TERESITA CHAN, ALICIA CHAN; VIRGINIA CHAN AND VICENTE CHAN, CHAN CHIN, PETITIONER-APPELLEE,…
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Appeal by the Government from an order of the Court of First
Instance of Manila granting the petition of Chan Chin for the correction of
certain entries in the Record of Births of the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar of Manila relative to four (4) of the twelve (12) alleged
“children” of said petitioner-appellee.
The first of the “children” in question bears the name of Teresita. According
to said Record, her family name is “Uy“,
her father is “Chi Uy” and her mother
“Juanita Go”, whose birthplace is “Amoy, Chinkang“.
These entries are sought to be corrected as follows: (1) “Teresita Chan“,
in lieu of “Teresita Uy“;
(2) “Chan Chin“, (appellee herein)
in lieu of “Chi Uy“; (3)
“Juanita Co“, in lieu of “Juanita Go“; and
(4) “Manila,” in
lieu of “Amoy, Chinkang“.
The second child is Alicia.
According to said Record, she is “Alicia Ching“,
and her parents are “Chang Ching“, and
“Juanita Go”, both born in “Emoy, China”. The corrections sought to be made are: (1) “Alicia Chan“, in lieu
of “Alicia Ching“; (2) “Chan
Chin“, in lieu of “Chang Ching“;
(3) “Juanita Co“, in lieu of “Juanita Go“;
and (4) “Amoy” instead of “Emoy“.
The third is Virginia. According to said Record, her full name is
“Virginia Chan”, and her father is “Chin Chan”, born in
“Manila”. The corrections sought are: (1) “Chan
Chin“, in lieu of “Chin Chan” and (2)
“Amoy, China”
in lieu of “Manila.”
The fourth and last is Vicente.
According to said Record, his full name is “Vicente Chan,” and
his father is “Chan Ching“. Petitioner maintains that “Chan Ching” should read “Chan Chin.”
The appealed order authorizing these amendments should be
reversed.
1. The relief sought by
petitioner is predicated upon Article 412 of our Civil Code, which provides
that: “No entry in a civil register
shall be changed or corrected, without a judicial order.” In Baybayan vs. Republic[1],
we stressed that:
“It has been the uniform jurisprudence of this Court, since Ty Kong Tin v. Republic (1954), 94 Phil. 321, that substantial
alteration, 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 correct innocuous or clerical errors, such as misspellings
and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the
understanding (Black v. Republic, L-10869, November 28, 1958; Ansaldo v. Republic, L-10226, February 14, 1958; Tan Su v.
Republic, L-12140, April 29, 1959; Bentoto v.
Republic, L-14978, May 23, 1961; De Castro v. Republic, L-17431, April 30,
1963; Lui Lin v. Republic, L-18213, December 24,
1963).”[2]
Far from being “harmless” or “innocuous”, the
changes sanctioned by the lower court are or may be “substantial” in
nature. In the case of Teresita, it affects not only her name, but, also, the identity
of her parents and her status.
Most certainly, Chi Uy is presumably a person
different from Chan Chin, and “Juanita Co”, born in “Amoy;
Chinkang” is not apparently the same “Juanita
Go”, born in “Manila“. The same observations apply to the case of
Alicia. Moreover, the fact that her
mother, like that of Teresita, is recorded as
“Juanita Co”, born in “Amoy” or “Emoy;
China” suggests that there is such Juanita Co, born in China; other than
“Juanita Go”, born in “Manila”. Similarly, prima facie
“Chin Chan”; born in “Manila”
and father of Virginia; according
to the Record of Births; is not “Chan Chin” born in “Amoy;
China”. Then, again; “Chan Ching“;
the father of Vicente Chan, according to the same Record; is presumably other
than Chan Chin, considering that “Chan” is a rather common
Chinese family name.
In this connection it should be noted that the order appealed
from was issued “on the leadings”; to which petitioner attached photostatic copies of the alleged birth certificates of Teresita; Alicia, Virginia and Vicente,1 the alien certificates of
Registration and the Master Cards of Registered Alien of Chan Chin and Juanita
Co,2
the Chinese Consul General’ s certificate of their marriage on October 20,
1945,3
their marriage contract dated December 8, 19624 and the birth certificates of the
other alleged children of the petitioner.5 No effort has been made establish
the authenticity of the originals of these documents. No evidence whatsoever was introduced
to prove that the Teresita Uy,
Alicia Ching; Chi Uy and
Juanita Go mentioned in the birth certificates of the first two6
are the same Teresita Chan, Alicia Chan; Chan Chin an
Juanita Co mentioned in Master Cards of the last two7 and that the latter are the same
persons alluded to in the certification issued by said Consul General and in
the aforementioned marriage contract.8 Neither is there any evidence on
record that the “Chin Chan”, born in “Manila”,
mentioned in the birth certificate of Virginia Chan1,
and the “Chan Ching” referred to in the
birth certificate of Vicente Chan2, are the same Chan Chin, born in Amoy,
China, mentioned in said
certificate, marriage contract, and Master Cards3.
2. According to the petition
herein, the allegedly “erroneous entries” in question “were
occasioned by petitioner’s wife’s difficulty of speech and pronunciation
and failure of complete recollection x x x when she was not yet fully recovered from the rigors of
childbirth.” In other words, the entries reflect correctly the data
furnished by her. Whether or not she
committed a mistake in giving such data is a factual issue, which does not
appear on the Record of Births; and, hence, can not be corrected in the
summary proceeding under said Article 412.
Needless to say, there is absolutely nothing in the record
to bear out the aforementioned averments of petitioner herein regarding the
circumstances under which the entries in question have allegedly been
made. What is more; there are
indications to the contrary; for Teresita Uy was born on March 10, 1947, whereas her birth
certificate4
was filed on March 22, 1947; Alicia was born on May 2, 1949, but her birth
certificate5
was filed on June 18, 1949; Virginia was born on September 26, 1950; but her
birth certificate6 was filed on October 10, 1950; and
Vicente was born on May 19, 1952, but his birth certificate7
was filed on June 12, 1952.
Then, again, petitioner would have Us believe: (1) that Alicia is his second
daughter; whereas the birth certificate of “Alicia Ching”8
states that she is the third child of her parents; (2) that Virginia is
his third child, whereas the birth certificate of Virginia Chan”9
states that she is the fourth child of “Chin Chan”; (3) that
he (petitioner) is the same ”Chan Ching”
mentioned in the birth certificate10 of Vicente Chan, but; according to
this document, which was prepared in June 1952; Chan Ching
was 26 years old at his last birthday, whereas petitioner was born on
February 2, 1928, pursuant to his Master Card1, so that in June, 1952, he was only
a little over 24 years of age.
3. The title of the petition herein gave the names of Teresita “Chan” and Alicia “Chan”, not
those of “Teresita Uy”
and “Alicia Ching“, respectively, appearing
in the Record of Births. In Ng Yao Siong vs. Republic2,
it was held:
“It is our view that this failure in the heading of the
application to give the true name sought to be changed is fundamental;
such failure is non-compliance with the strict requirements of publication; it
is fatal; and the court did not acquire jurisdiction to hear the case.
” x x x
Notices in the newspapers, like the one under consideration, usually appear in
the back pages. The reader, as is to be
expected, merely glances at the title of the petition. It is only after he has satisfied himself
that the title interests him that he proceeds to read down
further. The probability is that the
portions in the publication heretofore quoted will escape the reader’s
notice. The purpose for which the
publication is made, that is, to inform, may thus be unserved.”
In the case at bar, the names of “Teresita
Uy” and “Alicia Ching”
do not appear, either in the title or in the body of the notice
published in connection therewith.
Considering that publication of said notice is essential to the
jurisdiction of the court in proceedings of this nature3;
that the purpose of said publication is to bind the whole world4;
and that, for such publication to be effective, it must give “the true name
sought to be changed”5, we find no reason to depart from
the view heretofore adhered to by this Court.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from should be, as it is
hereby reversed, and another one shall be entered dismissing the petition
herein, with costs against petitioner-appellee Chan
Chin.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, and Teehankee, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., did not take part.
Reyes, JBL, Dizon, and Sanchez, JJ., on official leave.
[1]
L-20717, March 18, 1966. Underscoring supplied.
[2]
See also San Luis de Castro v. Republic, L-17431, April 30, 1963; Lui Lin v. Republic, L-18231, December 24, 1963; Beduya v. Republic, L-17639, May 29, 1964; Reyes v.
Republic, L-17642, Nov. 27, 1964; David v. Republic, L-21316, Nov. 29,
1965; Chug Siu v. Local Registrar of Manila,
L-20649, July 31, 1967; Jaime Lim v. Local Registrar of Manila, L-24284,
Feb. 28, 1968.
1
Annexes A, B, C and D.
2
Annexes E, F; G. and H.
3
Annex I.
4
Annex J.
5
Annexes K to Q.
6
Annexes A and B.
7
Annexes G and H.
8 Annexes I and J.
1 Annex C.
2 Annex D.
3 Annexes E, F; G and H.
4 Annex A.
5 Annex B.
6 Annex C.
7 Annex D.
8 Annex B.
9 Annex C.
10 Annex D.
1 Annex G.
2 L-20306, March
31, 1966. Underscoring
supplied.
3 Jayme S. Tan v.
Republic, L-16384, April 26, 1962.
4 Uy Sioco
Nacague Tan v. Republic, L-19847, Apr. 29, 1966.
5 Ng Yao Siong
v. Republic, supra.