REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. HON. FELIX V. BARBERS, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH XXXIII, AND DOMINADOR AQUINO ES…

This case is about the cancellation of an entry in a civil
register.  In the birth certificate, on
file in the civil registry of Manila, of May-Velin
Estrada, who was born on May 25, 1973, item 24 thereof, dealing with “Date
and Place of Marriage of Parents (For legitimate birth)”, contains the
following entry:  “June 18, 1972,
San Juan, Rizal“.

On the other hand, in the birth certificate of
May-Velin’s younger brother, Dominador
Estrada, Jr.  (he
was born on June 21, 1974),
the entry under that same item 24  was
“Not married”.

The parents of the two children claim that they are not married
to each other.  The wife or mother,
Filipinas Vea Agbunag-Estrada,
testified that she lied to the nurse, who assisted at the birth of May-Velin, that she was married to Dominador
Aquino Estrada. 
She said that she concocted that lie because she was ashamed to admit
that she was not married to the father of the child.

On July 8, 1977,
the father, Dominador, filed in the Court of First
Instance of Manila an amended verified petition, praying for the cancellation
of that alleged erroneous entry in item 24 of May-Velin’s
record of birth.  The local civil registrar
of Manila alleged in his answer to
the petition that the correction sought was substantial and controversial
because it involved a change of status.

The Solicitor General opposed the petition on the ground that the
cancellation was not authorized under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court because,
if it were allowed, the status of the child would be changed from legitimate to
illegitimate.

After due publication and hearing, the lower court found the
petition to be meritorious.  It ordered
the local civil registrar of Manila
to cancel the said entry.  The State
appealed.

The appeal should be sustained. 
Long settled is the rule that the errors which can be corrected or
cancelled under the summary procedure contemplated in article 412 of the Civil
Code, as implemented in Rule 108, refer to clerical errors or harmless and
innocuous changes but not to substantial and controversial matters.

Since the entry sought to be cancelled concerns the status of a
child as legitimate or illegitimate and the civil status of the parents as
married or unmarried, the alleged error refers to a substantial and vital
matter.  Its cancellation is not covered
by Rule 108 (Republic vs. Court of First Instance of Davao
Oriental, L- 31748, August 20, 1979 and cases cited therein).

In David vs. Republic, L-21316, November 29, 1965, 15 SCRA 438, one of the corrections in
the birth record requested by the petitioner was “to delete the place and
date of marriage placed therein because there exists no such
marriage”.  That relief was
denied.  It was held that petitioner’s
remedy was in an adversary proceeding.

WHEREFORE, the lower court’s order dated May 2, 1978, canceling
the entry as to the date and place of marriage of the petitioner and his
alleged common-law wife, is reversed and set aside.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Santos,
and Abad
Santos, JJ., concur.

Antonio, J., is abroad.