SPOUSES RAMON C. FERREROS AND DULCE T. FERREROS, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRY, MANILA, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRY, QUEZON CITY, OUR LADY OF LOURD…

Ferreros versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Spouses Ramon C. Ferreros and Dulce T. Ferreros against the Republic of the Philippines and the civil registries concerned. The spouses asked the Regional Trial Court of Manila to cancel the entry of their first marriage in the civil registry on the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage license. The case matters because it draws the line between a mere correction of a civil registry entry under Rule 108 and a direct action to declare a marriage void, which belongs exclusively to the Family Courts. It is a jurisdictional case, and it teaches that a party cannot dissolve a marriage by the simple expedient of changing a registry entry.

Procedural History

The spouses filed a petition for cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The trial court dismissed the petition without prejudice, holding that the allegations and reliefs sought a declaration that the previous marriage was void from the beginning, which falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Family Court, and that even under Rule 108 the indispensable parties were not impleaded. The spouses filed an amended petition and a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. They then went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari and mandamus. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed the trial court, ruling that the lone issue raised, the declaration of nullity of the previous marriage, is within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Family Courts, so there was no grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals likewise denied their motion for reconsideration. The spouses then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

On March 20, 1989, Spouses Ferreros were married in the Philippine Independent Church in Sta. Cruz, Manila. Unknown to them at the time, they did not have a valid marriage license, and the absence of the license was indicated in their marriage contract. The church reported to the Local Civil Registry of Manila that the marriage had been celebrated without a marriage license.

Upon learning of this, and believing their marriage was void for want of a marriage license, the spouses married again on October 3, 1995 at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon City. This second marriage had all the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage.

On September 7, 2022, the spouses filed a petition for cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking to cancel the entry of their previous marriage because of the absence of a marriage license. The trial court dismissed the petition without prejudice, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Before the Supreme Court, the Office of the Solicitor General argued that a Rule 108 petition is an improper remedy and cannot substitute for a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the spouses' petition for certiorari and mandamus.
• Whether or not a petition for cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 may be used to declare a marriage void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over such a petition, or whether it belongs exclusively to the Family Courts.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Court of First Instance of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.

This fixes who may file and where, but it does not authorize a declaration of nullity of marriage.

Section 2 of Rule 108 provides:

Sec. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. — Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) Judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (g) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.

The Court reads this list as covering only clerical, spelling, typographical, and other innocuous errors, not substantial or contentious alterations.

Section 5 of Republic Act Number 8369, the Family Courts Act of 1997, provides:

Section 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. — The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases: . . . . d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains.

This is the provision that lodges the declaration of nullity of marriage exclusively in the Family Courts.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err. Under Rule 45, the Court is generally limited to reviewing errors of law, and the findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding absent a showing that they are unsupported by the evidence.

On the second issue, the Court held that Rule 108 may be used only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical, and other innocuous errors in the Civil Registry. A clerical error is one visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding. Substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings where all interested parties are impleaded and due process is observed. A petition for correction or cancellation of an entry cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage, because a direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the safeguards of marriage under the Family Code and the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages. The Court stressed that a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve a marriage by the mere expedient of changing the entry of marriage in the civil registry.

On the third issue, the Court held that the spouses' main cause of action was to seek a declaration that their previous marriage was void from the beginning, which is governed not by Rule 108 but by the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages. Since they sought to cancel the marriage contract itself because it was void for lack of a marriage license, and not merely to cancel a specific entry, the matter falls within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Family Courts. The Court noted that the dismissal was without prejudice, so the spouses may refile the appropriate action before the proper court.

Doctrine

A petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil registry under Rule 108 is limited to clerical, spelling, typographical, and other innocuous errors. It cannot be used to declare a marriage void from the beginning, because that is a substantial and contentious matter that requires a direct action. Jurisdiction over complaints for annulment of marriage and declaration of nullity of marriage is vested exclusively in the Family Courts under Section 5 of Republic Act Number 8369. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the refiling of the case in the appropriate proceeding.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the Regional Trial Court of Manila had no jurisdiction over the Rule 108 petition, without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate action before the proper court.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve a marriage by the mere expedient of changing the entry of marriage in the civil registry. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between Rule 108 corrections and a declaration of nullity of marriage, and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Courts.