IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF ENTRIES IN THE BIRTH RECORD OF ERICA SAMPANG DIN WITH CONSEQUENT RECLASSIFICATION OF HER STATUS AND CHANGE OF SURNAME, GERALDINE M. SAMPANG, …

Sampang versus Republic

The Case

This is an appeal brought by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, against a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga that granted a mother's petition to correct the birth record of her daughter. Geraldine Sampang sought to change her daughter Erica's recorded status from legitimate to illegitimate, to change the child's surname to her own, and to cancel the entry stating that the parents were married. The Republic opposed on due process grounds. The case matters because it tests the boundary of Rule 108 proceedings: when a correction is substantial and controversial, the proceeding must be adversarial, and the local civil registrar is an indispensable party.

Procedural History

Geraldine Sampang filed a verified petition for cancellation and correction of entries in the civil registry before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52 of Guagua, Pampanga. The trial court set the case for initial hearing, ordered publication and notice, and later received the petitioner's evidence. On September 8, 2011, the trial court rendered a decision granting the petition. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a notice of appeal on October 13, 2011, contending that the Republic and the local civil registrar were denied due process. The appeal was elevated to the Supreme Court, which resolved the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in granting the petition.

Facts

Geraldine Sampang gave birth to Erica on October 17, 1994. In registering the child, Geraldine made it appear that she was married to Edwin Limin Din on September 18, 1991, in San Fernando, Pampanga, to avoid social humiliation, because her relationship with Edwin was merely that of lovers. The child was registered as Erica Sampang Din.

On February 4, 2011, Geraldine filed a petition to change Erica's surname to Sampang and to cancel the date and place of the supposed marriage. She alleged that no document proved that the biological father recognized or acknowledged the child, and that as an illegitimate child Erica should bear her mother's surname. The petition impleaded the local civil registrar, the Civil Registrar General, Edwin Din, and his parents.

The trial court ordered publication of the notice once a week for three consecutive weeks and service of copies on the Solicitor General, the provincial prosecutor, and the civil registrars. The local civil registrar was impleaded and notified of the initial hearing. The Office of the Solicitor General, however, received a copy of the petition only on October 10, 2011, after the decision had been rendered. The public prosecutor actively participated and interposed no objection. The trial court granted the petition, and the Republic appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the petition for correction and cancellation of entries in the birth record.
• Whether or not the Republic and the local civil registrar were denied due process.
• Whether or not the correction of filiation from legitimate to illegitimate requires an adversarial proceeding under Rule 108.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides:

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 a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.

This provision governs the notice and publication that vest the trial court with jurisdiction over the petition.

Section 5 of Rule 108 provides:

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.

This provision affords the civil registrar and interested persons the opportunity to oppose the petition.

Article 412 of the Civil Code provides:

No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order.

This provision requires a judicial order for any change or correction in the civil register.

Ruling

The Supreme Court held that the appeal was not meritorious and affirmed the trial court's decision. On the first issue, the Court found that the petitioner complied with the requisites of Rule 108: the petition was published once a week for three consecutive weeks, and notice of the initial hearing was served on the local civil registrar, the Solicitor General, the provincial prosecutor, and the Civil Registrar General. Such compliance vested the trial court with jurisdiction.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Republic and the local civil registrar were not denied due process. The local civil registrar was impleaded and notified of the initial hearing. Publication under Section 4 was notice to the whole world, binding all parties. The Court explained that a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and not against a person, validated essentially through publication. The local civil registrar and the Republic had ample time to file an opposition but failed to do so. The public prosecutor, duly authorized by the Solicitor General, actively participated and interposed no objection.

On the third issue, the Court held that the correction sought, changing filiation from legitimate to illegitimate, is substantial and controversial and must be threshed out in an adversarial proceeding where all affected parties, including the local civil registrar, are given the opportunity to contest. The Court quoted:

However, as repeatedly construed, changes which may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate as well as sex, are substantial and controversial alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings depending upon the nature of the issues involved.

The Court found that the proceeding was adversarial: the father and grandparents were properly summoned, and the local civil registrar was impleaded. The Court also held that the petitioner substantially established the truth of the facts recorded. The Certificate of No Marriage issued by the National Statistics Office showed no record of marriage between Geraldine and Edwin, proving they were never married and that Erica is illegitimate and should bear her mother's surname.

Doctrine

A petition for correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 may generally be used only to correct innocuous or harmless errors, such as clerical or typographical errors. When the correction sought would affect the filiation of a person from legitimate to illegitimate, or vice versa, the proceeding must be adversarial, and all affected parties, including the local civil registrar, must be made parties and afforded the opportunity to contest the petition. The local civil registrar is an indispensable party without whom no final determination of the case can be had. Publication under Section 4 of Rule 108 is notice to the whole world and vests the court with jurisdiction, the proceeding being an action in rem. The role of the court is to ascertain the truth about the facts recorded in the civil registry.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision and dismissed the appeal, upholding the correction of Erica's birth record to reflect that she is illegitimate, that her surname is Sampang, and the cancellation of the entry stating her parents were married on September 18, 1991, in San Fernando, Pampanga.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a correction affecting filiation from legitimate to illegitimate is substantial and controversial and requires an adversarial proceeding where the local civil registrar is an indispensable party. Examiners use this case to test the limits of Rule 108 summary proceedings and the indispensable-party status of the civil registrar.