REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF CAUAYAN, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, AND DOMINADOR AGCAOILI, RESPONDENTS.

The petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals for
affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela,
ordering the Local Civil Registrar to correct certain entries in the birth
certificate of Dominador Agcaoili.

On May 12, 1988, private respondent Agcaoili filed a petition
before the Regional Trial Court of Isabela to correct his birth certificate by
changing inter alia his citizenship from Chinese to Filipino and
his status from legitimate child to illegitimate.

The hearing was set on June 28, 1988. A copy of the notice of hearing was served upon the Solicitor
General. The notice was also ordered
published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Province of Isabela.

On June 28, 1988, the Solicitor General entered his appearance as
counsel for the Republic of the Philippines, but did not file any opposition to
the petition. He authorized the
Provincial Prosecutor to appear in the case and requested that he himself be
also furnished with copies of the notices, orders, resolutions, processes and
decision of the court.

After hearing, Judge Henedino P. Eduarte ordered the Local Civil
Registrar to make the corrections sought by Agcaoili.^[1]

The Republic appealed. The Solicitor General argued that there was no compliance with the
jurisdictional requirement in respect of the publication of the notice of
hearing. His reason was that the
petitioner failed to submit copies of the newspapers where the notices were
allegedly published. He contended that
the proceedings were flawed by such defect and so could not be considered
adversarial.

The respondent court, on March 17, 1992, affirmed the decision of
the trial court.^[2]
The Republic and the Local Civil Registrar then filed the present petition for
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They raise anew the issue of non-compliance with the publication
requirement and the non-adversarial nature of the proceedings.

The records show that the Local Civil Registrar was the
respondent in the petition filed in the trial court. The proper notices were sent and presumably published. The Republic appeared through the Provincial
Prosecutor, who was present at the trial. He did not object to Agcaoili’s evidence, specifically Exhs.
“B” and “B-1” – the affidavit of the publisher of Dalton
Post and the clippings of the notice as published in the said newspaper. Neither did he question the lack of
jurisdiction of the trial court because of the non-presentation of the copies
of the published notices. Instead, he
actually participated in the trial and even cross-examined the petitioner and
his witnesses.

The respondent court correctly observed:

x x x  during the initial
hearing on July 8, 1988, appellee presented his set of documentary evidence to
prove the jurisdictional facts. When
these documentary evidences were formally offered (pages 28 and 43, original
record), Fiscal Delmendo interposed no objection (page 47, ibid). It was only after a decision was rendered
and through this appeal that the Republic alleges that the trial court erred in
finding that the jurisdictional requirement respecting the publication of the
May 30, 1988 order was duly complied with.

x        x          x

x x x  In this case, the
Republic not only failed to file any opposition to the petition of appellee but
also actively participated in the proceeding until its termination in the trial
court. It was only after encountering
an adverse judgment that this matter of non-compliance
with the jurisdictional requirements is being raised.

In Republic v. Valencia,^[3] the
Court held that even substantial changes in the civil registry can be made
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court as long as they are justified in “appropriate adversarial
proceedings.” This doctrine was reiterated in Lim v. Zosa,^[4]
where the lower court was ordered
to hold a trial on the merits of the changes sought, also regarding the
petitioner’s citizenship, likewise under Rule 108.

The proceedings held in the case at bar were unmistakably
adversarial. There was a full-blown
trial, where the prosecutor actually participated. Agcaoili testified, as so too did his sister and his brother, all
to the effect that while the petitioner was described as a Chinese and a legitimate child of Tan Kon and
Cayetana Agcaoili, his full brother and sister were Filipinos and the
illegitimate children of the said parents; and they were so described in their
birth certificates.^[5]
The petitioner also submitted
documentary evidence in support of his claim, including his election of
Philippine citizenship upon his attainment of majority age, his oath of
allegiance, and his mother’s affidavit that she and the petitioner’s father
were not married. The fact that the
Republic did not present any evidence of its own or refute the evidence of the
petitioner did not make the proceedings non-adversarial.

As held in Valencia –

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 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.

It is also worth noting that the Solicitor General has not
questioned the genuineness, authenticity, relevancy or sufficiency of the
evidence submitted before the trial court relating to Agcaoili’s citizenship
and civil status.

The Republic now claims that it is not bound or estopped by the
acts or omissions of its agents, but it is not as simple as that. This rule must be rationalized. The Office of the Solicitor General cannot excuse
its own shortcomings by blandly invoking this doctrine as if it were some magic
incantation that could benignly, if arbitrarily, condone and erase all its
errors because it was acting on behalf of the Government. In the case at bar, the Republic fully and
knowingly acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the trial court. It cannot now wipe out all the proceedings
below simply because, through no fault of the private respondent, its counsel
made a mistake in not raising its objections.

WHEREFORE, the petition
is DENIED. It is so ordered.

Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Bellosillo,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 31-34.

^[2]
Bengzon, J., ponente, with Lombos-de la Fuente and Abad Santos, JJ.,
concurring.

^[3]
141 SCRA 462.

^[4]
146 SCRA 366.

^[5]
Rollo, p. 34.