IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH OF MISHCA KOLLEEN ALPAY DAZO, MICHAEL KENNETH AMBAY DAZO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE,

In re Correction of Entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of Mishca Kolleen Alpay Dazo

The Case

This is the case of the Republic of the Philippines against Michael Kenneth Ambay Dazo, an appeal brought by the Office of the Solicitor General from a trial court decision that granted a petition to correct several entries in a child's certificate of live birth. The action began as a summary special proceeding for correction of entries in the civil register, and it matters because it draws the dividing line between harmless clerical errors, which may be corrected administratively under the Clerical Error Law, and substantial changes, which demand the adversarial proceeding under Rule 108 with all indispensable parties impleaded. It is a staple of remedial law and civil law examinations on the correction of civil registry entries.

Procedural History

Michael Kenneth Ambay Dazo filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11, seeking correction of entries in the certificate of live birth of his daughter Mishca. The trial court found the petition sufficient in form and substance, set it for hearing, and directed publication of the notice once a week for three consecutive weeks. The notice was published in a weekly newspaper on three successive dates, and an affidavit of publication was executed. The Office of the Solicitor General entered its appearance for the Republic and deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila to assist in the hearings. The trial court admitted the documentary exhibits and thereafter rendered its decision granting the petition. The Office of the Solicitor General, unconvinced, elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal.

Facts

In April 2011, Michael Kenneth Ambay Dazo filed a petition for correction of entries in the certificate of live birth of his daughter Mishca. He alleged four errors: that Mishca's middle name was entered as Alday instead of Alpay; that the mother's name was entered as Rochelle Gabriel Alday instead of Ma. Rochelle Gabriel Alpay; that his own name was entered as Michael Jenneth Ambay Dazo instead of Michael Kenneth Ambay Dazo; and that an entry on date and place of marriage, reading July 15, 1995, Pangasinan, should be deleted because there was no marriage at all.

The trial court set the petition for hearing and ordered publication, which was complied with. The Office of the Solicitor General appeared for the Republic. The trial court admitted the documentary exhibits and, in January 2012, rendered its decision directing the civil registrar of Manila to correct the entries as prayed for, including the deletion of the date and place of marriage. It relied on a certification from the National Statistics Office that the petitioner's name does not appear in its national indices of marriage.

The Office of the Solicitor General appealed, arguing that the deletion of the marriage entry was a substantial change affecting the child's filiation and legitimate status, and that the petition could not be granted in a summary proceeding without impleading the indispensable parties.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the petition for correction of entries despite the petitioner's failure to implead all the indispensable parties.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the petition in a summary proceeding.

Applicable Provisions

Article 412 of the Civil Code provides:

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

This is the general rule requiring a court order before any civil registry entry may be changed, and it frames the question of which procedure governs.

Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9048, the Clerical Error Law, defines the error that may be corrected administratively:

Clerical or typographical error refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however, That no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner.

This definition controls whether the corrections sought are harmless, and it supplies the requirement that the correction be supported by reference to other existing records.

Section 8.1.2 of the implementing rules of Republic Act No. 9048 provides:

The petition for the correction of clerical or typographical error shall be supported with the following documents: At least two public or private documents showing the correct entry or entries upon which the correction or change shall be based.

This is the documentary standard the petitioner failed to meet for the name corrections.

Section 3 of Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court requires that all persons having or claiming any interest affected by the proceeding be made parties. This is the procedural safeguard the petition omitted, and it is the provision on which the appeal turns.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the trial court erred in granting the petition without impleading the indispensable parties. The deletion of the date and place of marriage is not a clerical error but a substantial change, because it would alter Mishca's status from legitimate to illegitimate. Such a change requires the adversarial proceeding under Rule 108, whose Section 3 mandates that all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties. The petitioner failed to implead Mishca's mother and her paternal grandparents.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that a summary proceeding was improper for a substantial correction. It quoted its earlier ruling that extending Rule 108 beyond innocuous or harmless changes, so as to comprehend substantial and controversial alterations concerning citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, without observing the proper proceedings, would render the rule an unconstitutional exercise tending to increase or modify substantive rights.

As to the name corrections, the Court held that while they are clerical in nature, the petitioner failed to present existing records to prove the correct entries, as required by the definition and by the implementing rules. He did not offer records showing the mother's middle name is Alpay, nor even his own birth certificate to prove his first name is Kenneth. The trial court therefore had no basis to order those corrections.

Doctrine

First, under Article 412 of the Civil Code, no civil registry entry may be changed or corrected without a judicial order, but Republic Act No. 9048 removed harmless clerical or typographical errors from the ambit of Rule 108 and placed them under administrative correction. Second, a clerical error is one that is harmless and innocuous, visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and correctable only by reference to other existing records, and it must not involve a change of nationality, age, status or sex. Third, a correction that changes a child's legitimacy, filiation, or the legitimacy of a marriage is a substantial change that must be litigated under Rule 108, with all indispensable parties impleaded under Section 3. Fourth, even a clerical correction must be supported by at least two public or private documents showing the correct entry.

Disposition

The appeal was granted, and the trial court's decision was reversed and set aside, so the Republic prevailed and the petition for correction was denied.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a correction changing a child's legitimacy is substantial and cannot be had in a summary proceeding without impleading all indispensable parties. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between administrative correction under the Clerical Error Law and the adversarial proceeding under Rule 108.