G.R. No. L-21806. August 17, 1967
IN RE: PETITION FOR THE CORRECTION AND/OR MARGINAL ANNOTATION OF ENTRIES IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF OSCAR SIA OLIVA, DOMINGO DY OLIVA, AND VICENTA SIA OLIVA, PETITIONERS-APPEL…
REYES, J.B.L., Acting C.J.:
Appeal of the Solicitor General from the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Rizal (Pasay
City) in Sp. Proc. No. 1834-P, ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City to correct his record, “as to the
nationality of Oscar Sia Oliva
by substituting the word ‘Filipino’ in lieu of ‘Chinese’ in entry No. 8 of his
certificate of live birth, upon payment of the prescribed fees.”
The spouses Domingo Dy Oliva and Vicenta Sia Oliva, allegedly both
citizens of the Philippines,
petitioned the Court of First Instance on January 22, 1963, to order the correction and/or
annotation of certain entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of their child,
Oscar Sia Oliva, who was
born on October 28, 1958. It was claimed that through mistake and
inadvertence in the preparation and registration of the birth certificate of
said child, petitioners’ nationality was entered as Chinese, instead of Filipino. Over the State’s opposition, the lower court
rendered the decision now on appeal.
Justifying the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower court, and
disputing the applicability in this case of the authorities cited by the
Solicitor General, that citizenship cannot be the subject of the summary
proceeding for correction of entries in the civil registry, petitioners-appellees contend that it is not the declaration of their
citizenship that is here involved, because that is supposed to be already
settled,[1]
but only the correction of an erroneous entry in the certificate of birth of
their son, Oscar.
It is the settled rule that the jurisdiction of the court to
order the correction or alteration of entries in the civil registry, allowed
under Article 412 of the Civil Code, is limited only to innocuous or clerical mistakes. As stated in the leading case of Ansaldo vs. Republic:[2]
“x x
x the clerical errors which might be corrected
through judicial sanction under Article 412 of the New 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 parents, 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. Then and only then may the
change or changes be made in the entry in a civil register that will affect or
even determine conclusively the citizenship or nationality of a person therein
involved.” (Underscoring supplied.)
With the data presently appearing in the civil registry, which,
according to the certificate of live birth of the child, were furnished by Vicenta S. Oliva (Exh. 1-A), Oscar Sia Oliva, as the son of Domingo Dy Oliva, a Chinese national, and of Vicente Yu Sia, another Chinese national, is a Chinese citizen. To alter the entries by changing the
nationality of said parents, from “Chinese” to “Filipino”,
would be to make it appear in that public record that the same Oscar Sia Oliva is the son of Filipino
citizens and, therefore, is a citizen of the Philippines. It is not difficult to see that the changes
asked for are neither harmless nor innocuous, as petitioners-appellees pretend them to be.
Neither is the case exempted from the operation of the rule
simply because the petitioning parents were able to present evidence tending to
establish their (the parents’) Philippine citizenship. That fact would not be material in a summary
proceeding for judicial correction of the civil registry, citizenship not
being a proper subject of inquiry therein.
Anent the complaint of appellees that
parties similarly situated as they are left without recourse under the law,
this Court once said:
“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 Article 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, section
4 of which requires notice and publication, x x x.”[3]
and which was precisely established in
1964 for the purposes of petitioners herein.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed,
and the petition ordered dismissed, without prejudice to new proceedings in
conformity with Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court. Costs against the appellees.
Makalintal, Bengzon,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., on leave.
[1]
In the court below, petitioners presented proof of their citizenship,
consisting of their marriage contract, which placed their nationality as
Filipino (Exh. A); Opinion No. 19, s-1952 of the Secretary
of Justice, cancelling the alien registration
certificates of Domingo Oliva and his sister, Iluminada, allegedly it having been established that their
father, Isidoro Oliva, is a
Filipino citizen (Exh. C); and the order, dated March
27, 1962, of the Acting Assistant Commissioner of Immigration (C.C. No. 2410),
cancelling the alien registry of Vicenta
Sia Chua, on account of the naturalization of her
father, on July 5, 1955, when she was 19 years, 11 months and 4 days old (Exh. D).
[2]
102 Phil. 1046, Feb. 14, 1958;
reiterated in Black vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-10869, Nov. 28, 1958; Tan Su vs.
Republic, G. R. No. L-12140, April 29,
1959; Bantoto Coo vs. Republic, G.
R. No. L-14978, May 23, 1961;
Lui Sin vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-18213, Dec. 24, 1963; David vs.
Republic, G. R. No. L-21316, Nov. 29,
1965; Baybayan vs. Republic, G. R.
No. L-20707, March 18, 1966;
Tan vs. Republic, G. R. No. L-19847, April 29, 1966.
[3]
Tan vs. Republic, supra.