DY KIM LIONG, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

On July 25, 1960, Dy Kim Liong
filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Manila praying that the
birth certificate of his son Raynaldo Chan filed in the local civil registrar
be corrected by writing therein the name Raynaldo Dy and that the name of Jose
Chan appearing therein as the father of Raynaldo be changed to Dy Kim Liong.

On December 29, 1960, the
government moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it states no cause
of action while the court a quo had no jurisdiction to grant the relief
prayed for. Instead of acting on the motion the court a quo deferred its
resolution and proceeded to try the case. And on May 21, 1961, it rendered
decision denying the petition, but adding in the dispositive part the
following; “However, by virtue of the provisions of Section 10, 11, and 12
of the Civil Register Act No. 3753, the Local Civil Register is hereby directed
to receive for filing and registration with his office and for attachment to
the birth certificate of the child, Raynaldo, a certified true copy of the
record of the bureau of immigration showing petitioner’s name to be Dy Kim
Liong.”

The government moved to reconsider
this portion of the decision which requires the registration in the civil
registry of a copy of the record of the Bureau of Immigration showing
petitioner’s name to be Dy Kim Liong, and when the motion was denied, the
government took the present appeal.

In ordering the civil registrar of
Manila to register and attach to the birth certificate of Raynaldo Chan a
certified true copy of the record of the Bureau of Immigration showing the name
of petitioner to be Dy Kim Kong, the court a quo relied on the provisions of
Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Act No. 3753, known as the Civil Register Act, which
we quote:

“Section 10,
(Adoption, name changes naturalizations). In cases of adoption, changes of name, and
naturalizations, it shall be the duty of the interested parties or petitioners
to register the same in the local civil register of the municipality where the
decree was issued. The names of the interested parties and such other data as
may be required by the regulations to be issued shall be entered in the
register.”

“Section 11. (Clerks of court
to register certain decisions). In cases of legitimation,
acknowledgment, adoption, naturalization, and change of given or family name,
or both, upon the decree of the court becoming final, it shall be the duty of
the clerk of court which issued the decree to ascertain whether the same has
been registered, and if this has not been done, to have said decree recorded in the office of the civil registrar of the municipality
where the court, is functioning.”

“Section 12. (Duties of local
registrars). Local civil registrars shall (a) file registrable
certificates and documents presented to them for entry; (b) compile the
same monthly and prepare and send any information required of them by the Civil
Registrar-General; (c) issue certified transcripts or copies of any
certificate or document registered, upon payment of the proper fees; (d)
order the binding, properly classified, of all certificates or documents
registered during the year; (e) send to the Civil Registrar-General
during the first ten days of each month a copy of the entries undo during the
preceding months, for filing; (f) index the same to facilitate search
and identification in ease any information is required; and (g)
administer oaths, free of charge, for civil register purposes.”

It is contended that it nowhere
appears from the provisions abovequoted that the civil registrar is authorized
to receive for registration the document in question for the most that can be
said is that what are authorized to be registered are those “registrable
certificates and documents” which have relation to adoptions, changes of
names, naturalization, legitimation and acknowledgment that may be decreed by
the court in proper proceedings, as may be clearly gleaned from Sections 10 and
11 above referred to. The instant petition is not one of those which call for
the adjudication of any of the reliefs above enumerated. It is one for
correction of an alleged mistake committed in the name of petitioner and of his
son in the registry which the court a quo properly dismissed for being improper
and unauthorized. The main petition having been dismissed, the grant of the
additional relief is unauthorized as in effect it would be a virtual
circumvention of what the law expressly prohibits.

We find this argument well-taken
for it cannot really be contended that the certified copy of the record of the
Bureau of Immigration showing petitioner’s name to be By Kim Liong is one of
those registrable certificates and documents referred to in Section 12 (a)
of the law. Note that this section uses the word “registrable” and by
that the law clearly wants to convey the idea that the certificates and
documents that are authorized for registration must have reference to any one
of those decreed by the court in proper proceedings as mentioned in Sections 10
and 11 of the same Act. Otherwise, the word “registrable” would have
no definite meaning, as it would be left to a whimsical or arbitrary
interpretation. At any rate, that word cannot refer to the document in question
for. To allow its registration would be to circumvent what the law expressly
enjoins. Such circumvention cannot be sanctioned by this Court.

Wherefore, the decision of the court a quo
is hereby modified by deleting that portion which authorizes the registration
and attachment to the birth certificate of the child Raynaldo of a certified
true copy of the record of the Bureau of Immigration showing petitioner’s name
to be Dy Kim Liong. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.