G.R. No. L-49703. July 31, 1987
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. NAPOLEON R. FLOJO, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAGAYAN, SECOND BRANCH, AND INOCENCIO P. CARAG, RESPONDENTS.
PADILLA, J.:
Review on certiorari of the Order issued by the respondent
Judge on 27 October 1978 in Sp. Proc. No. II-401 of the Court of First Instance
of Cagayan, entitled: “In the
matter of the Petition to Correct the Entry in the Civil Registry of Aparri, Cagayan: Inocencio P. Carag, petitioner versus
The Local Civil Registrar of Aparri, Cagayan, respondent”, which directed
the respondent therein to change the entry in the register of birth of
Inocencio Carag Tan from “Chinese” to “Filipino”.
It appears that the herein private respondent Inocencio P. Carag
filed a verified petition with the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, docketed
therein as Sp. Proc. No. II-401,
to correct an entry in his register of birth wherein he was erroneously registered as a “Chinese” instead
of a Filipino citizen. Named respondent
was the Local Registrar of Aparri, Cagayan.
After due notice to the Solicitor General and publication of the
notice of hearing, dated 22 August 1978, in the Cagayan Valle Weekly Journal,
the parties were heard. At the hearing,
it was established that the petitioner therein, Inocencio P. Carag was born in
Aparri, Cagayan on 15 March 1947, to the spouses Vicente Carag Tan, a natural
child of Eugenia Baquiran who is a Filipino citizen, and Anastacia Pe. Accordingly, the respondent Judge found, and
so ruled, that Inocencio P. Carag is a Filipino citizen so that the necessary
correction should be made in his record of birth.[1]
The Republic of the Philippines now questions the Order on the
ground that it is “contrary to the well-settled doctrine that the only
mistakes in the entries in the Civil Register which can be corrected under Art.
412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court are those that
are merely clerical in nature and not those which affect the civil status or
citizenship of the person involved. In
support thereof, the petitioner cites the ruling of the Court in the cases of Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic,[2] Chua Wee vs. Republic,[3] and Republic vs. Castaneda.[4]
The contention is without
merit. While the Court has, indeed,
previously ruled that the changes or corrections authorized under Art. 412 of
the Civil Code, which envisions a summary procedure, relate only to harmless
and innocuous alterations, such as misspellings
or errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding
and that changes in the citizenship of a person or his civil status are substantial
as well as controversial, which can only be established in appropriate
adversary proceedings, the rule has been relaxed. In Republic vs. Valencia,[5] the Court said:
“It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a
petition is not for the correction of clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous
nature, but one involving nationality or citizenship, which is indisputably
substantial as well as controverted, affirmative relief cannot be granted in a
proceeding summary in nature. However, it is also true that a right in law may be enforced and a wrong
may be remedied as long as the appropriate remedy is used. This
Court adheres to the principle that even substantial errors in a civil registry
may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved
by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. As a matter of fact, the opposition of the
Solicitor General dated February 20, 1970 while questioning the use of Article
412 of the Civil Code in relation to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court
admits that ‘the entries sought to be corrected should be threshed out in an appropriate
proceeding.’
“What is meant by ‘appropriate adversary proceeding?’ Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘adversary
proceeding’ as follows:
‘One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an
ex parte application, one of which the party seeking relief has given legal
warning to the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest
it. Excludes an adoption proceeding.’
(Platt v. Magagnini, 187, p. 716, 718, 110 Was. 39).
x x x
“The court’s role in hearing the petition to correct certain
entries in the civil registry is to ascertain the truth about the facts recorded
therein. Under our system of
administering justice, truth is best ascertained or approximated by trial
conducted under the adversary system.
x x x
“Provided the trial court has conducted proceedings where all
relevant facts have been fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel
have been given opportunity to demolish the opposite party’s case, and where
the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered, the suit or
proceeding is ‘appropriate.’
“The pertinent sections of Rule 108 provide:
‘SEC. 3. Parties. – When cancellation or correction of an
entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who
have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made
parties to the proceeding.
‘SEC. 4. Notice and publication. – Upon the filing of the petition, the
court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same,
and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the
petition. The Court shall also cause
the order to be published once in a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province.
‘SEC. 5. Opposition. – The
civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the
entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such
notice, file his opposition thereto.’
“Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding
concerning the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are
– (1) the civil registrar, and (2) all persons who have or claim any interest
which would be affected thereby. Upon the filing of the petition, it becomes
the duty of the court to (1) issue an order fixing the time and place for the
hearing of the petition, and (2) cause the order for hearing to be published
once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province. The
following are likewise entitled to oppose the petition: (1) the civil registrar, and (2) any person
having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or
correction is sought.
“If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a
petition for correction and/or cancellation of entries in the record of birth
even if filed and conducted under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court can no
longer be described as ‘summary.’ There can be no doubt that when an
opposition to the petition is filed either by the Civil Registrar or any person
having or claiming any interest in the entries sought to be cancelled and/or
corrected and the opposition is actively prosecuted, the proceedings thereon
become adversary proceedings.
x x x
“We are of the opinion that the petition filed by the
respondent in the lower court by way of a special proceeding for cancellation
and/or correction of entries in the civil register with the requisite notice
and publication and the recorded proceedings that actually took place
thereafter could very well be regarded as that proper suit or appropriate
action.”
This ruling was reiterated in Antonio Chiao Ben Lim vs. Hon.
Mariano A. Zosa.[6]
In the instant case, there is no doubt or question that the
proceeding conducted in the lower court was an adversary proceeding and
“appropriate” in that “all relevant facts have been fully and
properly developed, where the opposing counsel have been given opportunity to
demolish the opposite party’s case, and where the evidence has been thoroughly
weighed and considered.” The questioned Order states in part:
“After the required publication of the order of Notice of
hearing dated August 22, 1978 in the Cagayan Valley Weekly Journal, Exhibits
‘B’, ‘B-1’ and ‘B-2’, has been complied with and notice to the Solicitor
General, petitioner adduced evidence on October 17, 1978. No written opposition was interposed by the
respondent but at the hearing, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Arsenio Gonzales
appeared for and in behalf of the Solicitor General.”[7]
In view of the foregoing, the respondent judge had jurisdiction
to order the correction of the subject defective entry in the civil register.
WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit. Without costs.
SO ORDERED.
Yap, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, p. 17
[2]
94 Phil. 321
[3]
G.R. No. L-27731, April 21, 1971, 38 SCRA 409
[4]
G.R. No. L-36769, Oct. 28, 1977, 80 SCRA 111
[5]
G.R. No. L-32181, March 5, 1986, 141 SCRA 462
[6]
G.R. No. L-40252, Dec. 29, 1986
[7]
Rollo, p. 17