MATRON M. OHOMA (MATIORICO M. OHOMNA), PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF AGUINALDO, IFUGAO AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Ohoma versus Office of the Municipal Local Civil Registrar of Aguinaldo, Ifugao

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Matron M. Ohoma, also known as Matiorico M. Ohomna, against the Office of the Municipal Local Civil Registrar of Aguinaldo, Ifugao and the Republic of the Philippines. The petitioner asked the Regional Trial Court to cancel his first Certificate of Live Birth and to retain a second, later-registered certificate that carried what he claimed were the correct entries for his first and last names. The Republic appealed, and the Court of Appeals annulled the trial court's ruling. The case matters because it fixes two rules every reviewee must know: a birth already lawfully registered within the thirty-day period cannot be the subject of a valid late registration, and the proper remedy for wrong entries in the civil register is a petition for correction under Rule 108, not a cancellation of the correct registration.

Procedural History

On March 26, 2014, the petitioner filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao, Branch 15, docketed as a special proceeding, seeking cancellation of his first birth certificate. The trial court found the petition sufficient in form and substance, gave it due course, directed notice to the concerned government offices, and ordered publication for three consecutive weeks. After hearing, an order of general default was issued and the petitioner presented his evidence ex parte. In a Resolution dated June 9, 2015, the trial court granted the petition and ordered the Local Civil Registrar of Aguinaldo and the National Statistics Office, now the Philippine Statistics Authority, to cancel the first birth certificate.

The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the birth could no longer be the subject of a second registration because it had already been validly registered, and that the proper remedy was a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108. In a Decision dated February 1, 2018, the Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the trial court ruling, holding that there could be no valid late registration and that the second birth certificate should have been the one nullified. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated May 16, 2018. The petitioner then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

The petitioner was born on May 13, 1986 in Aguinaldo, Ifugao. His mother, Antonia Maingit, reported the birth, and it was duly recorded in the civil register of the Local Civil Registrar of Aguinaldo on June 13, 1986 under a Certificate of Live Birth with Registry Number 45-86, the first birth certificate. That first certificate recorded his first name as Matron and his last name as Ohoma.

Unknown to the petitioner, his birth was belatedly recorded again on February 8, 2000 under Certificate of Live Birth with Registry Number 2000-24, the second birth certificate. This second certificate reflected the name Matiorico Ohomna, which the petitioner claimed was his true and correct name and the name by which he had been known in both public and private transactions.

Claiming that the first birth certificate contained erroneous entries that caused confusion as to his identity, the petitioner asked the trial court to cancel the first certificate and retain the second. To support his petition, he presented his two birth certificates, his Elementary School Permanent Record, a copy of his Passport Application Form, and his Professional Driver's License. Notably, Antonia was the informant and the signatory on both birth certificates, yet her signatures on the two documents were materially different, and the petitioner offered no plausible explanation for the discrepancy.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it annulled and set aside the trial court ruling that ordered the cancellation of the petitioner's first birth certificate.
• Whether or not the petitioner's claim for correction of the entries in his name properly falls under Rule 108, such that the trial court had jurisdiction to resolve it despite the prayer being for cancellation of the first certificate.
• Whether or not the petitioner sufficiently established, through competent evidence, that his true first and last names are Matiorico Ohomna and not Matron Ohoma.

Applicable Provisions

Article 412 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without a judicial order.

This is the statutory anchor for Rule 108, which the Court used to characterize the petitioner's real remedy as a correction of entries rather than a cancellation of the first registration.

Office of the Civil Registrar-General Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1983, as amended, provides:

The birth of a child shall be registered within 30 days from the time of birth in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of the city/municipality where it occurred.

This rule is decisive: because the petitioner's birth was registered within thirty days, the later registration was an invalid late registration.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals was correct in setting aside the trial court ruling. The petitioner's birth had already been reported by his mother and duly recorded on June 13, 1986, within thirty days from his birth. There could therefore be no valid late registration, and it is the second birth certificate that should be declared void and cancelled, even if the entries therein are claimed to be the correct ones.

On the second issue, however, the Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in saying the petitioner had to file another petition. The ultimate objective was to correct the erroneous entries in his first and last names, and such an action properly falls under Rule 108. The Court explained that to correct simply means to make or set aright, to remove the fault or error from. Since the petitioner complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 108, the trial court had jurisdiction, especially because the petition contained a general prayer for other reliefs just and equitable, which enables the court to award reliefs supported by the pleadings and the evidence even if not specifically prayed for.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioner failed to sufficiently establish that his father's last name was Ohomna and not Ohoma through competent evidence, such as the father's birth certificate, the certificate of marriage to his mother, or a government-issued identification card or record. The Court stressed that while the first name may be freely selected by the parents, the last name to which the child is entitled is fixed by law. It added that the real name of a person is that given him in the Civil Register, not the name by which he was known in the community or which he has adopted. On this score alone, the correction of the first and last names was denied.

Doctrine

A birth already lawfully registered within thirty days from birth cannot be the subject of a valid late registration; a subsequent registration is void and must be cancelled, even if its entries are claimed to be correct. The remedy for erroneous entries in a civil register is a petition for correction under Rule 108, implementing Article 412 of the Civil Code, and a general prayer for other reliefs just and equitable lets the court grant the correction without a new petition. The real name of a person is that recorded in the Civil Register, not the name by which he is known in the community, and the last name is fixed by law and must be proved by competent evidence.

Disposition

The petition was denied; the Court set aside the Court of Appeals decision and resolution and entered a new judgment ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Aguinaldo, Ifugao and the Philippine Statistics Authority to cancel the petitioner's Certificate of Live Birth with Registry Number 2000-24, the second birth certificate.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a birth already registered within thirty days cannot be validly registered again, so the later certificate is void and the remedy for wrong entries is correction under Rule 108. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between cancellation and correction of civil registry entries, and the rule that the name in the Civil Register, not the community name, is the real name.