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,…

Chan Chin versus Republic

The Case

This is the case of Chan Chin versus the Republic of the Philippines, decided by the Supreme Court in September 1969. Chan Chin, the petitioner below, asked the Court of First Instance of Manila to correct entries in the civil registry concerning four minors whom he claimed as his children. The Republic appealed, and the Supreme Court had to decide whether those corrections could be granted in a summary proceeding under Article 412 of the Civil Code, or whether they were substantial changes that required a full adversarial action. The case matters because it draws the line between harmless clerical corrections and alterations that touch status and citizenship, and because it reminds us that publication in a summary proceeding must name the very person whose record is to be changed.

Procedural History

Chan Chin filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the correction of certain entries in the Record of Births of the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, relative to four of his twelve alleged children. The trial court granted the petition by order, issuing the corrections on the pleadings, without receiving evidence. The Government, represented by the Republic, appealed that order directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the order appealed from and ordered the dismissal of the petition.

Facts

Chan Chin claimed to be the father of twelve children. He sought to correct the birth records of four of them: Teresita, Alicia, Virginia, and Vicente. In the record, Teresita appeared as Teresita Uy, daughter of Chi Uy and Juanita Go, born in Amoy, Chinkang. Chan Chin wanted her name changed to Teresita Chan, her father to Chan Chin, her mother to Juanita Co, and her birthplace to Manila. Alicia appeared as Alicia Ching, daughter of Chang Ching and Juanita Go, both born in Emoy, China. He asked that she be recorded as Alicia Chan, her father as Chan Chin, her mother as Juanita Co, and her birthplace as Amoy. Virginia appeared as Virginia Chan, daughter of Chin Chan, born in Manila. He asked that her father be recorded as Chan Chin and her birthplace as Amoy, China. Vicente appeared as Vicente Chan, son of Chan Ching. He asked that his father be recorded as Chan Chin.

The order was issued on the pleadings. Chan Chin attached photostatic copies of the birth certificates, the alien certificates of registration and master cards of Chan Chin and Juanita Co, the Chinese Consul General's certificate of their marriage in October 1945, their marriage contract dated December 1962, and the birth certificates of his other alleged children. No effort was made to establish the authenticity of the originals of these documents. No evidence was introduced to prove that the persons named in the birth certificates were the same persons named in the master cards, the consular certification, and the marriage contract.

The petition explained that the erroneous entries were occasioned by the wife's difficulty of speech and pronunciation and her failure of complete recollection when she was not yet fully recovered from the rigors of childbirth. The record showed that the birth certificates were filed days or weeks after each birth. It also showed inconsistencies: Alicia was described as the second daughter, but her certificate stated she was the third child; Virginia was described as the third child, but her certificate stated she was the fourth child of Chin Chan; and Chan Ching was recorded as twenty six years old in June 1952, while Chan Chin was born in February 1928 and was then only a little over twenty four. Finally, the title of the petition named Teresita Chan and Alicia Chan, not Teresita Uy and Alicia Ching, and those true names appeared neither in the title nor in the body of the published notice.

Issues

• Whether or not the corrections sought are substantial alterations affecting status and citizenship that cannot be ordered in a summary proceeding under Article 412 of the Civil Code.
• Whether or not the factual issue of whether the wife committed a mistake in furnishing the data can be corrected in a summary proceeding when it does not appear on the face of the Record of Births.
• Whether or not the failure of the petition and the published notice to state the true names sought to be changed is a fatal defect that deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.

Applicable Provisions

Article 412 of the Civil Code provides:

No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without a judicial order.

This is the provision on which Chan Chin predicated his petition, and the Court used it to distinguish summary correction of innocuous errors from substantial alterations that require an appropriate action.

Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court is invoked in the decision through the ruling in Baybayan versus Republic, which provides:

It has been the uniform jurisprudence of this Court, since Ty Kong Tin versus 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.

This is the doctrinal test the Court applied to measure whether the corrections were harmless or substantial.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the changes were not harmless or innocuous but substantial in nature. In the case of Teresita, the correction affected not only her name but also the identity of her parents and her status. Chi Uy is presumably a person different from Chan Chin, and Juanita Co, born in Amoy, Chinkang, is not apparently the same as Juanita Go, born in Manila. The same observations applied to Alicia. Chin Chan, born in Manila, is prima facie not Chan Chin, born in Amoy, China. And Chan Ching, the father of Vicente, is presumably other than Chan Chin, considering that Chan is a rather common Chinese family name. The Court noted that the order was issued on the pleadings, with no effort to establish the authenticity of the originals of the documents and no evidence that the persons named in the certificates were the same persons named in the master cards, the consular certification, and the marriage contract.

On the second issue, the Court held that the entries reflected correctly the data furnished by the wife. 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 cannot be corrected in the summary proceeding under Article 412. The Court found nothing in the record to bear out the averments about the circumstances of the entries, and found indications to the contrary in the dates of filing and in the inconsistencies about the birth order and the age of Chan Ching.

On the third issue, the Court held that the failure to state the true names sought to be changed was fatal. Quoting Ng Yao Siong versus Republic:

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.

The Court stressed that publication is essential to jurisdiction, that its purpose is to bind the whole world, and that for publication to be effective it must give the true name sought to be changed. Since Teresita Uy and Alicia Ching appeared neither in the title nor in the body of the notice, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, under Article 412 of the Civil Code, a summary proceeding may correct only innocuous or clerical errors, such as misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding. Second, substantial alterations, such as those affecting the status and citizenship of a person in the civil registry, cannot be ordered unless first threshed out in an appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented, as under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court. Third, a factual issue of whether a parent committed a mistake in furnishing data to the registrar does not appear on the face of the record and cannot be resolved in a summary proceeding. Fourth, publication of the notice is essential to jurisdiction, its purpose is to bind the whole world, and it must state the true name sought to be changed; failure to do so is fatal and deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the order appealed from and ordered the dismissal of the petition, with costs against Chan Chin.

Remember This

Remember the line that summary proceedings under Article 412 reach only innocuous or clerical errors, while substantial alterations affecting status and citizenship must be threshed out in an appropriate action with notice to all affected parties. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between clerical and substantial corrections, and to test the jurisdictional requirement that publication state the true name sought to be changed.