IN THE PETITION TO RECTIFY THE CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH ENTERED UNDER REGISTRY NO. 845 (E45) OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA.

On January 7, 1956, appellant Joaquin P.
Roces filed, with the Court of First Instance of Manila, a petition
alleging that he is married to Pacita Carvajal; that on November 4,
1955, he came to know of the existence of a birth certificate
registered with the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, certified true
copy of which is attached to said complaint, mentioning him as the
father of one Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces, an illegitimate child; that
said birth certificate shows, on its face, that it had been 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 280 of the Civil Code of the Philippines . The prayer
in said petition is of the following tenor:

“WHEREFORE, in accordance with the provision of
Article 412 of the Civil Code, it is respectfully prayed unto this
Honorable Court that an order be issued directing the Local Civil
Registrar of the City of Manila to rectify the original of the
Certificate of Birth represented by Annex ‘A’ of this petition and the
entry made under Registry No. 845 (E-52) of his office, by striking out
from the said documents all informations having reference to the herein
petitioner as the father of the child mentioned therein, and that the
surname “ROCES’ appended to the name ‘Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces’ be also
striken from the aforesaid records.

“Petitioner further
prays for any other and further relief which this Honorable Court may
deem just and equitable in the premises.”

The
Local Civil Registrar of Manila filed an answer stating that he had no
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the averments contained in the petition and that, if ordered by the
court, pursuant to Article 412 of said Code, he would effect the
correction prayed for in the petition.

Later on, Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces, represented by his mother and
natural guardian, Carmen O. Valdellon, intervened and opposed the
petition upon the ground that it “involves, not merely correction of
clerical errors, but controversial matter” and that “there is another
pending action involving the name question.” After appropriate
proceedings, the lower court subsequently issued an order, dated
February 11, 1956, dismissing the petition upon the authority of Ty
Kong Tin vs. Republic of the Philippines, 94 Phil. 321, 50
Off. 1077. A reconsideration of said order having been denied,
petitioner now seeks a review thereof by record on appeal.

The Ty Kong
Tin case is not in point. Ty Kong Tin sought an amendment of the entry
in the record of birth of his children relative to his and their
political status, so that it may state that all of them are citizens of
the Philippines instead of “Chinese”, as set forth in the birth
certificate of said children and in the records of the local civil
registrar. On appeal, we reversed the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila granting this relief, upon the ground that the
corrections authorized under Article 412 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines are purely “clerical in nature”, not those “which may
affect the civil status of the nationality or citizenship of the
persons involved, and that “the procedure contemplated” in said Article
412 “is summary in nature” and “cannot cover cases involving
controversial issues.” Indeed, the point in controversy in the Ty Kong
Tin case was whether or not petitioner and his children were Chinese
citizens, as stated in the corresponding certificates of birth and
record of birth, or Filipino citizens, as contended by Ty Tong Tin.

The issue in the case at bar is, however, entirely different 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 are whether the statements in said birth
certificate identifying the alleged father of said child are valid and
whether the Local Civil Registrar was justified in making the
corresponding entry in the records of his office.

It should be noted, in this connection, that according to said birth
certificate, the mother of Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces is one Carmen O.
Valdellon, whose civil status is said to be “single”. The certificate
is signed by the physician of a local hospital and, apart from naming
Joaquin P. Roces as the father of the child, it states that said
petitioner is “married”. On the back of the instrument there is a sworn
statement of Carmen O. Valdellon about the truth of the data therein
contained. Petitioner Joaquin P. Roces did not subscribe either the
birth certificate or the aforementioned verified statement or any other
declaration of similar import. Upon the other hand, section 5 of Act
No. 3753, specifically ordains, in the penultimate paragraph thereof,
that:

“In the case of an illegitimate child, the birth,
certificate shall be signed and sworn to jointly by the parents of the
infant or only by the mother if the father refuses. In the latter case,
it shall not be permissible to state or reveal in the document the name
of the father who refuses to acknowledge the child, or to give therein
any information by which such father could be identified.”

Similarly, Article 280 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides:

“When the father or the mother makes the recognition
separately, he or she shall not reveal the name of the person with whom
he or she had the child; neither shall he or she state any circumstance
whereby the other parent may lie identified.”

Thus, both legal provisions explicitly prohibit, not only the naming
of the father of a child born outside wedlock, when the birth
certificate, or the recognition, is not filed or made by him, but,
also, the statement of “any information” or “circumstance” by which he
“could be identified.” Accordingly, in Crisolo vs. Macadaeg^[*] (G.R. No. L-7017, decided April 29, 1954), we held that “the Local Civil Registrar had no authority
to make of record the paternity” of an illegitimate child “upon the
information of a third person”; that “records of public officers which
are admissible ‘are limited to those matters which the public officer has authority to record,”; that “it is essential
to authorize admission of a copy of the record of a private instrument
that such instrument ‘be made in accordance with the statutory
requirement'” (see also, 20 Am. Jur., p. 880) ; and that the
certificate of birth of an illegitimate child, was signed by the mother
of the latter, “is undoubtedly incompetent evidence of fathership of said child.”

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 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.

Wherefore, the order appealed
from is reversed and the relief prayed for in appellant’s petition
hereby granted, without special pronouncement as to costs.

It is so
ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador , Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.

---

^[*] 94 Phil., 862.