ROSALINDA MATIAS, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Appeal by the State from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, dated 14 August 1961, directing
the Civil Registrar of Malabon, Rizal,
to insert the name of the petitioner in the apposite space left blank in the
certificate of birth.

Petitioner had filed in the court of first instance above named a
petition averring that she was born in Malabon, Rizal, on 28 February 1941; that when she needed a copy of
her birth certificate in connection with her desig­nation as exchange student
it was discovered that in her birth certificate the space destined for the name
of the child being registered had been left blank; that the particulars stated
in the certificate, such as date, time and place of birth, names and domicile
of parents, etc., corresponded with her own. 
Wherefore, she prayed that, after hearing, the court direct the
insertion of her name in the corresponding blank in the birth certificate
records of the Civil Registrar of Malabon.

Her petition, by direction of the court, was published by posting
copies thereof in the provincial capitol building in Pasig
as well as in the municipal building of Malabon for
at least two weeks, and by service of the same upon the Solicitor General and
the Civil Registrar of Malabon, Rizal.

In due time, the officers last named opposed the granting of the
petition on the ground that a petition for correction of entries in the Civil
Register under Article 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines could only
refer to clerical errors, and that the amendment sought by the petitioner was
not of this kind, and could not be granted by the court.

At the hearing, the petitioner presented the testimony of the
nurse midwife who attended her birth on the date stated in the birth
certificate; and said nurse attested to petitioner’s identity with the child
referred to in the birth certificate and affirmed to the court that the lack of
name was due to omission by over­sight. 
The nurse was corroborated by petitioner’s father.  Her baptismal certificate, giving her name as
Rosalinda Matias, coinciding with the recorded
certificate of birth as to date of birth and parentage of the child, was,
likewise, introduced and admitted in evidence.

The court of first instance granted the petition on 14 August
1961, and the Solicitor General duly appealed. 
Without questioning the probative value of petitioner’s evidence, the
State insists that the correction sought is not al­lowable under the law and
jurisprudence on the subject.

We believe the appeal to be untenable.  From the official certificate of birth itself
(Exhibit “A”), it appears that the name of a newly born child need
not be made to appear at the time the birth is entered in the record of the
Civil Register but may be subsequently inserted.  In fact, the birth certificate itself, after
the blank provided for the name of the new-born child, recites the fol­lowing
instruction:

“If the child is not yet named make a supplemental report as
directed.”

“Si al recien
nacido no se le ha puesto nombre todavia enviese un report suplementario segun instrucciones.”

It can thus be seen that the name of the child does not necessarily
have to appear in the record of birth at the time it is entered, but may be
supplied later.  And if the name may be
recorded subsequently on the strength of a supplemental report, there is no
reason why the same may not be done upon a judicial order, issued after proper
hearing.

Granting that the supplying of a name that was left blank in the
original recording of the birth does not constitute, as contended by the
Solicitor Gen­eral, a rectification of a mere clerical error, it is well to
observe that the doctrine of the case of Ty Kong Tin
vs. Republic, 94 Phil. 321, and subse­quent adjudications predicated thereon,^[1]
forbade only the entering of material corrections or amendments in the record
of birth by virtue of a judgment in a summary action against the Civil
Registrar.  In the case of petitioner
herein; however, the proceedings were not summary, consider­ing the publication
of the petition made by order of the court in order to give notice to any
person that might be interested, including direct service on the Solicitor
General himself.  Considering the
peculiar circumstances of this particular case, the fact ‘that no doubt is cast
on the truth of petitioner’s allegations, or upon her evidence in support thereof,
the absence of any showing that prejudice would be caused to any party
interested (since petitioner’s own father testified in her favor), and the
publicity given to the petition, we are of the opinion that the Ty Kong Tin doctrine is not control­ling in this case.

WHEREFORE, the decision under appeal is affirmed.  No costs.

Dizon, Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Capistrano, and Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.

Concepcion, C.J., and Ruiz Castro, J., on official leave, did not take part.

^[1] Ansaldo vs. Republic, 54 OG 5886; Chord vs. Local Civil Registrar, 52 OG 6541; Brown vs. Republic, 52
OG 6564.