DR. POLICARPIO C. ALISOSO, PETITIONER AND APPELLE, VS. TARCELA LASTIMOSO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.

Policarpio C. Alisoso, a physician by profession, filed a petition before
the Court of First Instance of Cebu praying that an
order be issued striking out his name from the record of birth of one Leonilo Lastimoso appearing in the
Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Pinarnungajan,
Cebu, to the end that he may not be associated with
the paternity of said child.

The petition recites that on
January 28, 1960, a child by the name of Leonilo Lastimoso was reported to
the Local Civil Registrar of Pinamungajan,
Cebu by one Lucila Q. Lastimoso as the child
of petitioner and was entered as such in the registry of birth of said office.
After having been informed of said false entry, petitioner immediately contacted
Tarcela Lastimoso, mother of
Leonilo, to ascertain if said entry was made with her
knowledge and consent. Tarcela, in an affidavit,
declared that she had not authorized anyone to register said child the office of
the above civil registrar, nor did she personally register, nor caused to have
said child registered in said office. Said Lucila Q.
Lastimoso was not the midwife
nor the nurse who attended the delivery of Tarcela Lastimoso, nor did she
have any authority to report to the local civil registrar the false statement
abovementioned. Petitioner was never married to Tarcela Lastimoso as was made to
appear in said entry, for the truth is that he is already married to one Irenea Hermosisima whom he married
on March 25, 1951. The record of the parish church of Pinamungajan, Cebu also discloses
that while the mother appearing therein of said child is Tarcela Lastimoso the father
appears recorded as “no conocido”
(unknown).

A representative of the Solicitor
General appeared for respondents who moved for the dismissal of the petition on
the ground that it does not state a cause of action because the correction
sought to be made does not partake of a clerical error as contemplated in
Article 412 of the new Civil Code.

The court a quo,
after hearing, granted the petition ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Pinamungajan to strike out from his record the name of
petitioner as the alleged father of minor Leonilo
Lastimoso and state in lieu thereof that his father is
unknown. Seasonably, the government has appealed.

The Solicitor General maintains
that the court a quo erred in entertaining the petition by ordering the Local
Civil Registrar of Pinamungajan to strike out the name
of petitioner from the birth record of minor Leonilo
Lastimoso as his father and in lieu thereof state that
his father is unknown for the reason that the correction sought to be made is
not merely clerical but involves a change that affects the paternity and filiation of both petitioner and the child Leonilo Lastimoso. Specifically,
he lay stress on some rulings laid down by this Court wherein it was stated that
what is contemplated in Article 412 of the new Civil Code “are mere correction
of mistakes that are clerical in nature and not those that which may affect the
civil status or the nationality or the citizenship of the persons involved” for
“if it refers to a substantial change which affects the status or citizenship of
a party, the matter should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon the
nature of the issue involved” (Ty Kong Tin vs.
Republic, 94 Phil. 321). In short, Article 412 authorizes not more than
“harmless and innocuous changes such as correction of a name that is clearly
misspelled, occupation of parents, etc.” (Ansaldo vs.
Republic, 102 Phil. 1046).

But considering the peculiar
facts obtaining in this case which are not disputed, to the effect that
petitioner is not the father of minor Leonilo Lastimoso, nor has he any amorous relation with his mother
Tarcela, as admitted in her affidavit, and that the
one who reported that false entry, one Lucila Q. Lastimoso, is a mere interloper or one bereft of any
authority to make such entry, which are parallel to the facts obtaining in the
case of Roces vs. The Local Civil Registrar, of Manila
(102 Phil. 1050), the court a quo granted the petition on the strength of
the ruling laid down in the case abovementioned.

The pertinent portion of the
Roces case which needs to be mentioned here is as
follows:

“On January 7, 1956, appellant
Joaquin P. Roces filed, the Court of First Instance of
Manila, a petition alleging that he is married to Pacita Carvajal; that on November
1, 1955, he came to know of the existence of a birth certificate registered wit”
the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, certified true copy of which is attached to
said complaint, mentioning him as the father of Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces, an illegitimate child; that said birth certificate
shows, on its face, that it had boon executed with neither the knowledge nor the
consent of the petitioner; and that said information with regard to the alleged
paternity of Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces is false, and
contrary to the provisions of Act No. 3753 and Article 230 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines.

* * * * * * *

“The issue in the case at bar is,
however, entirely cliffy t in nature. The legal status of Ricardo Joaquin V.
Roces is not in dispute. The pleadings and his birth
certificate show that he was born outside wedlock. The only questions before
Us whether the statements in said birth certificates
identifying the alleged father of said child are valid and whether the Local
Civil Registrar %vas justified in making the corresponding entry in the records
of his office.

* * * * * *
*

“It appearing on the face of the
birth certificate of Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces, that
the alleged father of this child has not signed the instrument, it is clear that
the statements therein relative to the identity of the father of this said child
were, and are an open violation of the law. Consequently, the local civil
registrar— who is duty bound to comply with said law and is partly charged with
its enforcement—had no authority to incorporate said unlawful statements in the
corresponding entry made by him in the records of his office, and that the
entry, insofar as the identity of the father of Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces, is null and void, and should be cancelled or
corrected.”

Since the facts obtaining in both
cases are parallel and are undisputed and show that the entry made in the
corresponding local registrar is false and as such it should be corrected or
deleted, we find no justifiable reason n for adopting a different ruling insofar
as this case is concerned. In this sense, we agree with the views expressed by
the court a quo.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is
affirmed. No costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Reyes, J. B. L.,
Barrera, Paredes, Dizon,
Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, concur.