Cases- Change of Name

8/9/2019 Cases- Change of Name

1/40

Lee vs. Court of Appeals, 367 SCRA 110 , October 11, 2001

Case Title : MARCELO LEE, ALBINA LEE-YOUNG, MARIANO LEE, PABLO LEE,

HELEN LEE, CATALINO K. LEE, EUSEBIO LEE, EMMA LEE, and TIU CHUAN,

petitione!, "!. COURT O# APPEALS and HON. LOREN$O B. %ENERACION and

HON. &AIME T. HAMOY, in t'ei (apa(itie! a! Pe!idin) &*d)e o+ Ban(' ,

Re)iona Tia Co*t o+ Mania and Ban(' /01, Re)iona Tia Co*t o+Kaoo2an Cit3, e!pe(ti"e3 and RITA K. LEE, LEONCIO LEE TEK SHENG in

t'ei pe!ona (apa(itie! and ROSA K. LEE-%AN4ERLEK, MELO4Y K. LEE-

CHIN, LUCIA K. LEE TEK SHENG, &ULIAN K. LEE, HENRY K. LEE, MARTIN K.

LEE, %ICTORIANO K. LEE, NATI%I4A4 K. LEE-MIGUEL, and THOMAS K. LEE,

epe!ented 53 RITA K. LEE, e!pondent!.Case Nature : PETITION +o

e"ie6 on (etioai o+ a de(i!ion o+ t'e Co*t o+ Appea!.

Sllabi Class : Spe(ia Po(eedin)!7A(tion!7Ci"i Re)i!te7Peadin)! and

Pa(ti(e7&*d)8ent!79od! and P'a!e!7A(tion!7Pe!(iption7Land Tite!7

#o*8 S'oppin)

Syllabi :1. Special Proceedings ; Civil Register ; It is precisely the province of aspecial proceeding such as the one outlined under Rule 108 of the RevisedRules of Court to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact.

+2. Special Proceedings ; Civil Register ; The ruling in abayo!Ro"e v.Republic, 1#8 $CR% &'( )1'88*, does not eclude recourse to Rule 108 ofthe Revised Rules of Court to effect substantial changes or corrections inentries of the civil register, the only reuisite being that the proceedingsunder Rule 108 be an appropriate adversary proceeding as contra!

distinguished fro- a su--ary proceeding.+3. Special Proceedings ; Civil Register ; Pleadings and Practice ; It istrue that in special proceedings for-al pleadings and a hearing -ay bedispensed "ith, and the re-edy granted upon -ere application or -otion,but this is not al"ays the case, as "hen the statute epressly provides Rule108, "hen all the procedural reuire-ents thereunder are follo"ed, is theappropriate adversary proceeding to effect substantial corrections and

changes in entries of the civil register.+!. Special Proceedings ; Civil Register ; Judgments ; It is high ti-e thatthe Court puts an end to the confusion so"n by pronounce-ents see-ingly

in conflict "ith each other, and perhaps, in the process, ste- the continuinginflu of cases raising the sa-e substantial issue The pronounce-ents in Ty /ong Tin v. Republic, '( hil. &1 )1'2(*, and Chua 3ee v. Republic, 8$CR% (0' )1'41*, proceed fro- a "rong pre-ise, that is, the interpretationthat %rticle (1& of the 5e" Civil Code pertains only to clerical errors of ahar-less or innocuous nature, effectively ecluding fro- its do-ain, and the

http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/345769873865/AKF836-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Pleadings%20and%20Practice/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judgments/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Pleadings%20and%20Practice/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judgments/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/345769873865/AKF836-rw/


2/40

scope of its i-ple-enting rule, substantial changes that -ay affect

nationality, status, filiation and the li6e.+". Special Proceedings ; Civil Register ; Words and Phrases ; In itsordinary sense, to correct -eans 7to -a6e or set right, 7to re-ove thefaults or errors fro- "hile to change -eans 7to replace so-ething "ith

so-ething else of the sa-e 6ind or "ith so-ething that serves as asubstitute. +6. Special Proceedings ; Civil Register ; Judgments ; The Ty /ong Tin pronounce-ent that %rticle (1& does not conte-plate -atters that -ay

affect civil status, nationality or citi9enship is erroneous.+7. Special Proceedings ; Civil Register ; $tatutes, Republic %ct )R.%.*'0(8 The obvious effect of R.%. '0(8 providing that clerical ortypographical errors in entries of the civil register are no" to be correctedand changed "ithout need of a udicial order and by the city or -unicipalcivil registrar or consul general is to re-ove fro- the a-bit of Rule 108 the

correction or changing of such errors in entries of the civil register, leavingfor the scope of operation of Rule 108 substantial changes and corrections in

entries of the civil register.+#. Special Proceedings ; Civil Register ; The Court ad-its that though ithas constantly referred to an appropriate adversary proceeding, it has failedto categorically state ust "hat that procedure is. R.%. '0(8 no" e-bodiesthat su--ary procedure "hile Rule 108 is that appropriate adversary

proceeding.+$. Special Proceedings ; Civil

Register ; Actions ; Prescription ; Inas-uch as no la" or rule specifically

prescribes a fied ti-e for filing the special proceeding under Rule 108 inrelation to %rticle (1& of the 5e" Civil Code, it is %rticle 11(' of the 5e"Civil Code "hich applies, in that the action -ust be brought "ithin five years

fro- the ti-e the right of action accrues.+10. Special Proceedings ; Civil Register ; Actions ; Prescription ; In petitions for cancellation and;or correction of entries in the records of birtharising fro- the falsification of the entries, the petitioners< right tiff action or right to sue accrued only upon their discovery that they in fact had a cause

of action.+11. Special Proceedings ; Civil Register ; Actions ; Prescription ; Land

Titles ; =nli6e a title to a parcel of land, a personone is either born of a particular -other or not.+12. Actions ; Pleadings and Practice ; Forum Shopping ; Words and

Phrases ; ?oru- shopping is present "hen in the t"o or -ore cases pending

there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action and reliefs sought.+

http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Words%20and%20Phrases/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judgments/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Actions/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Prescription/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Actions/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Prescription/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Actions/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Prescription/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Land%20Titles/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Land%20Titles/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Actions/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Pleadings%20and%20Practice/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Forum%20Shopping/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Words%20and%20Phrases/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Words%20and%20Phrases/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Words%20and%20Phrases/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judgments/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Actions/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Prescription/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Actions/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Prescription/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Special%20Proceedings/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Civil%20Register/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Actions/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Prescription/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Land%20Titles/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Land%20Titles/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Actions/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Pleadings%20and%20Practice/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Forum%20Shopping/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Words%20and%20Phrases/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Words%20and%20Phrases/http://void%280%29/


3/40

G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001

MARCELO LEE, ALBINA LEE-YOUNG, MARIANO LEE, PABLO LEE, HELEN LEE, CAALINO !.LEE, EU"EBIO LEE, EMMA LEE, #$% IU CHUAN, petitioners,vs.COUR O& APPEAL" #$% HON. LOREN'O B. (ENERACION #$% HON. )AIME . HAMOY, *$

t+e*r c##c*t*e # Pre*%*$ )/%e o Br#$c+ 7, Re*o$# r*# Co/rt o M#$*# #$% Br#$c+130, Re*o$# r*# Co/rt o !#oo#$ C*t4, reect*5e4 #$% RIA !. LEE, LEONCIO LEE E!"HENG *$ t+e*r ero$# c##c*t*e #$% RO"A !. LEE-(AN6ERLE!, MELO6Y !. LEE-CHIN,LUCIA !. LEE E! "HENG, )ULIAN !. LEE, HENRY !. LEE, MARIN !. LEE, (ICORIANO !.LEE, NAI(I6A6 !. LEE-MIGUEL, #$% HOMA" !. LEE, reree$te% b4 RIA !.LEE, respondents.

6E LEON, )R., J .

This Petition for Review on Certiorari, with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Inunction, see!s the reversal of the "ecision # of the Court of $ppealsdated Octo%er &', #(() in C$*+.R. P -O. #'0& . The assailed decision of the Court of $ppeals

upheld the Orders issued %y respondents 1udges 2on. 3oren4o 5. 6eneracion

and 2on. 1aime T.2amoy) ta!ing cogni4ance of two 7&8 separate petitions filed %y private respondents %efore theirrespective salas for the cancellation and/or correction of entries in the records of %irth of petitionerspursuant to Rule #9' of the Revised Rules of Court.

This is a story of two 7&8 sets of children sired %y one and the same man %ut %egotten of two 7&8different mothers. One set, the private respondents herein, are the children of 3ee Te! heng andhis lawful wife, :eh hio! Cheng. The other set, the petitioners herein, are allegedly children of 3eeTe! heng and his concu%ine, Tiu Chuan.

Rita :. 3ee, 3eoncio 3ee Te! heng, Rosa :. 3ee*6anderle!, ;elody :. 3ee*Chin, 3ucia :. 3ee Te!heng*Ong, 1ulian :. 3ee, 2enry :. 3ee, ;artin :. 3ee, 6ictoriano :. 3ee, -atividad :. 3ee*;igueland Thomas :. 3ee 7hereinafter referred to as private respondents8 filed two 7&8 separate petitionsfor the cancellation and/or correction of entries in the records of %irth of ;arcelo 3ee, $l%ina 3ee*


4/40

housemaid %ut far from %ecoming their housemaid, Tiu Chuan immediately %ecame 3ee Te! hengBsmistress. $s a result of their illicit relations, Tiu Chuan gave %irth to petitioners.

n!nown to :eh hio! Cheng and private respondents, every time Tiu Chuan gave %irth to each ofthe petitioners, their common father, 3ee Te! heng, falsified the entries in the records of %irth ofpetitioners %y ma!ing it appear that petitionersB mother was :eh hio! Cheng.

ince the %irth of petitioners, it was Tiu Chuan who gave maternal care and guidance to thepetitioners. They all lived in the same compound :eh hio! Cheng and private respondents wereresiding in. $ll was well, therefore, %efore private respondentsB discovery of the dishonesty and fraudperpetrated %y their father, 3ee Te! heng.

The tides turned after :eh hio! ChengBs demise on ;ay (, #('(. 3ee Te! heng insisted that thenames of all his children, including those of petitionersB, %e included in the o%ituary notice of :ehhio! ChengBs death that was to %e pu%lished in the newspapers. It was this seemingly irrational actthat piDued private respondentsB curiosity, if not suspicion.

$cting on their suspicion, the private respondents reDuested the -ational 5ureau of Investigation

7-5I8 to conduct an investigation into the matter. $fter investigation and verification of all pertinentrecords, the -5I prepared a report that pointed out, among others, the false entries in the records of%irth of petitioners, specifically the following.

#. $s per 5irth Certificate ;$RC=3O 3== 7$nne> @*#8, their father, 3== T=: 2=-+ madeit appear that he is the #&th child of ;rs. :=2 2IO: C2=-+, %ut upon investigation, it wasfound out that her 2ospital Records, the mother who gave %irth to ;$RC=3O 3== had given%irth for the #st time, as per diagnosis of the attending physician, "r. R. 3I;, it wasA+R$6I"$ I, P$R$ IA which means Afirst pregnancy, first live %irth deliveryA 7refer toE;$T=R P$TI=-TB R=COR" ;;$R< F $nne> I8. $lso, the age of the mother whenshe gave %irth to ;$RC=3O 3== as per record was only # years old, when in fact and intruth, :=2 2IO: C2=-+Bs age was then already ' years old. The address used %y theirfather in the ;aster Patient record was also the same as the 5irth Certificate of ;$RC=3O3== 7&)&? Ri4al $venue, ;anila8. The name of ;$RC=3O 3== was recorded under2ospital -o. &0', page .

&. $s per 5irth Certificate of $35I-$ 3== 7$nne> @*&8, it was made to appear that $35I-$3== was the third child which is without any rationality, %ecause the rd child of :=2 2IO:C2=-+ is ;=3O"< 3== T=: 2=-+ 7$nne> =*&8. -ote also, that the age of the mother asper 2ospital Records ump 7sic8 from # to && years old, %ut the only age gap of ;$RC=3O3== and $35I-$ 3== is only & years.

. $s per 5irth Certificate of ;$RI$-O 3== 7$nne> @*8, it was made to appear that;$RI$-O 3== was the ?th child, %ut the truth is, :=2 2IO: C2=-+Bs ?th child is 3CI$3== T=: 2=-+ 7$nne> =*)8. $s per 2ospital Record, the age of :=2 2IO: C2=-+ was

only & years old, while the actual age of :=2 2IO: C2=-+, was then already )9 yearsold.

). $s per 5irth Certificate of P$53O 3== 7$nne> @*)8, it was made to appear that P$53O3== was the #0th child of :=2 2IO: C2=-+ which is impossi%le to %e true, consideringthe fact that :=2 2IO: C2=-+ have stopped conceiving after her ##th child. $lso as per2ospital Record, the age of the mother was omitted in the records. If P$53O 3== is the #0thchild of :=2 2IO: C2=-+, it would only mean that she have 7sic8 given %irth to her first%orn child at the age of ' to ( years, which is impossi%le to %e true.


5/40

5ased on the %irth record of ;$RI$-O 3== in #(?, the recorded age of :=2 2IO:C2=-+ was & years old. Two years after P$53O 3== was %orn in #(??, the difference isonly & years, so it is impossi%le for P$53O 3== to %e the #0th child of :=2 2IO: C2=-+,as it will only mean that she have 7sic8 given %irth at that impossi%le age.

?. $s per 5irth Certificate of 2=3=- 3== 7$nne> @*?8, it was made to appear that she is the

0th child of :=2 2IO: C2=-+, %ut as per 5irth Certificate of 13I$- 3== 7$nne> =*?8, heis the true 0th child of :=2 2IO: C2=-+. Per 2ospital Record, :=2 2IO: C2=-+ isonly &' years old, while :=2 2IO: C2=-+B true age at that time was )? years old.

0. =;;$ 3== has no record in the hospital %ecause, as per complainantBs allegation, shewas %orn at their house, and was later admitted at Chinese +eneral 2ospital.

. $s per 5irth Certificate of C$T$3I-O 3== 7$nne> @*8, it was made to appear that he isthe #)th child of :=2 2IO: C2=-+, and that the age of :=2 2IO: C2=-+ a.!.a. ;rs.3== T=: 2=-+, umped from &' years old at the %irth of 2=3=- 3== on & $ugust #(?to ' years old at the %irth of C$T$3I-O 3== on && $pril #(?(.

'. $s per 5irth Certificate of ==5IO 3==, the alleged last son of :=2 2IO: C2=-+, theage of the mother is )' years old. 2owever, as per 2ospital Record, the age of ;rs. 3==T=: 2=-+, then was only ( years old. Considering the fact, that at the time of;$RC=3OBs %irth on ## ;ay #(?9. :=2 2IO: C2=-+Bs age is ' years old and at thetime of ==5IOBs %irth, she is already )' years old, it is already impossi%le that she couldhave given %irth to ' children in a span of only #9 years at her age. $s per diagnosis, thealleged mother registered on ==5IOBs %irth indicate that she had undergone C=$$RI$-=CTIO-, which "r. RIT$ :. 3== said is not true.

In view of the foregoing facts, the -5I concluded thatE

#9. In conclusion, as per Chinese +eneral 2ospital Patients Records, it is very

o%vious that the mother of these ' children is certainly not :=2 2IO: C2=-+, %uta much younger woman, most pro%a%ly TI C2$-. pon further evaluation andanalysis %y these $gents, 3== T=: 2=-+, is in a Duandary in fi>ing the age of:=2 2IO: C2=-+ possi%ly to conform with his grand design of ma!ing his 'children as their own legitimate children, conseDuently elevating the status of his &ndfamily and secure their future. The doctor lamented that this complaint would nothave %een necessary had not the father and his &nd family !ept on insisting that the' children are the legitimate children of :=2 2IO: C2=-+.'

It was this report that prompted private respondents to file the petitions for cancellation and/orcorrection of entries in petitionersB records of %irth with the lower courts.

The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss %oth petitions F P. PROC. -O. (&*00(& and P. PROC.

-O. C*#0) F on the grounds thatE 7#8 resort to Rule #9' is improper where the ultimate o%ective isto assail the legitimacy and filiation of petitionersG 7&8 the petition, which is essentially an action toimpugn legitimacy was filed prematurelyG and 78 the action to impugn has already prescri%ed.(

On @e%ruary #&, #((, respondent 1udge 6eneracion denied the motion to dismiss P. PROC. -O.(&*00(& for failure of the herein petitioners 7defendants in the lower court8 to appear at the hearingof the said motion.#9 Then on @e%ruary #, #((, 1udge 6eneracion issued an Order, the pertinentportion of which, reads as followsE


6/40

@inding the petition to %e sufficient in form and su%stance, the same is here%y given duecourse. 3et this petition %e set for hearing on ;arch &(, #(( at 'E9 in the morning %eforethis Court located at the ?th @loor of the City 2all of ;anila.

-otice is here%y given that anyone who has any o%ection to the petition should file on or%efore the date of hearing his opposition thereto with a statement of the grounds therefor.

3et a copy of this Order %e pu%lished, at the e>pense of the petitioners, once a wee! forthree 78 consecutive wee!s in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.

3et copies of the verified petition with its anne>es and of this Order %e served upon theOffice of the olicitor +eneral, and the respondents, and %e posted on the 5ulletin 5oard ofthis Court, also at the e>pense of the petitioners.

O OR"=R=".##

On the other hand, respondent 1udge 2amoy issued an Order dated $pril #?, #(( ta!ingcogni4ance of P. PROC. -o. C*#0), to witE

It appearing from the documentary evidence presented and mar!ed %y the petitioners thatthe Order of the Court setting the case for hearing was pu%lished in A;edia pdateA once awee! for three 78 consecutive wee!s, that is on @e%ruary &9, &, and ;arch 0, #(( asevidenced %y the $ffidavit of Pu%lication and the clippings attached to the affidavit, and %ythe copies of the A;edia pdateA pu%lished on the aforementioned datesG further, copy of theorder setting the case for hearing together with copy of the petition had %een served uponthe olicitor +eneral, City Prosecutor of :aloo!an City, Civil Registrar of :aloo!an City andthe private respondents, the Court holds that the petitioners have complied with the

urisdictional reDuirements for the Court to ta!e cogni4ance of this case.

>>> >>> >>>

O OR"=R=".#&

PetitionersB attempts at see!ing a reconsideration of the a%ove*mentioned orders of 1udge6eneracion and 1udge 2amoy failed, hence their recourse to the Court of $ppeals via a Petition forCertiorari and Prohi%ition with $pplication for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/orWrit of Preliminary Inunction. Petitioners averred that respondents udges had acted with gravea%use of discretion amounting to lac! or e>cess of urisdiction in issuing the assailed orders allowingthe petitions for the cancellation and/or correction of entries in petitionersB records of %irth to prosperin the lower courts.

In their petition %efore the Court of $ppeals, the petitioners raised the following argumentsE 7#8 Rule

#9' is inappropriate for impugning the legitimacy and filiation of childrenG 7&8 Respondents udgesare sanctioning a collateral attac! against the filiation and legitimacy of childrenG 78 Respondents udges are allowing private respondents to impugn the legitimacy and filiation of their si%lings despitethe fact that their undisputed common father is still aliveG 7)8 Respondents udges are entertainingpetitions which are already time*%arredG and 7?8 The petitions %elow are part of a forum*shoppingspree.#


7/40

@inding no merit in petitionersB arguments, the Court of $ppeals dismissed their petition in a "ecisiondated Octo%er &', #(().#) PetitionersB ;otion for Reconsideration of the said decision was alsodenied %y the Court of $ppeals in a Resolution dated "ecem%er #(, #(().#?

2ence, this petition.

#. Petitioners contend that resort to Rule #9' of the Revised Rules of Court is improper since privaterespondents see! to have the entry for the name of petitionersB mother changed from A:eh hio!ChengA to ATiu ChuanA who is a completely different person. What private respondents thereforesee! is not merely a correction in name %ut a declaration that petitioners were not %orn of 3ee Te!hengBs legitimate wife, :eh hio! Cheng, %ut of his mistress, Tiu Chuan, in effect a A%astardi4ationof petitioners.A#0 Petitioners thus la%el private respondentsB suits %efore the lower courts as acollateral attac! against their legitimacy in the guise of a Rule #9' proceeding.

"e%un!ing petitionersB a%ove contention, the Court of $ppeals o%servedE

>>> >>> >>>

$s correctly pointed out %y the private respondents in their comment . . . , the proceedingsare simply aimed at esta%lishing a particular fact, status and/or right. tated differently, thethrust of said proceedings was to esta%lish the factual truth regarding the occurrence ofcertain events which created or affected the status of persons and/or otherwise deprived saidpersons of rights.#

>>> >>> >>>

It is precisely the province of a special proceeding such as the one outlined under Rule #9' of theRevised Rules of Court to esta%lish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact.#' The petitionsfiled %y private respondents for the correction of entries in the petitionersB records of %irth wereintended to esta%lish that for physical and/or %iological reasons it was impossi%le for :eh hio!

Cheng to have conceived and given %irth to the petitioners as shown in their %irth records. Contraryto petitionersB contention that the petitions %efore the lower courts were actually actions to impugnlegitimacy, the prayer therein is not to declare that petitioners are illegitimate children of :eh hio!Cheng, %ut to esta%lish that the former are not the latterBs children. There is nothing to impugn asthere is no %lood relation at all %etween :eh hio! Cheng and petitioners.#(

@urther sanctioning private respondentsB resort to Rule #9', the Court of $ppeals adverted to ourruling in the leading case of Republic vs. Valencia&9 where we affirmed the decision of 5ranch HI ofthe then Court of @irst Instance 7C@I8 of Ce%u City ordering the correction in the nationality and civilstatus of petitionerBs minor children as stated in their records of %irth from AChineseA to A@ilipinoA, andAlegitimateA to AillegitimateA, respectively. $lthough recogni4ing that the changes or correctionssought to %e effected are not mere clerical errors of a harmless or innocuous nature, this Court,sitting en %anc, held therein that even su%stantial errors in a civil register may %e corrected and the

true facts esta%lished provided the parties aggrieved %y the error avail themselves of the appropriateadversary proceeding . In the said case, we also laid down the rule that a proceeding for correctionand/or cancellation of entries in the civil register under Rule #9' ceases to %e summary in natureand ta!es on the characteristics of an appropriate adversary proceeding when all the proceduralreDuirements under Rule #9' are complied with. Thus we heldE

AProvided the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have %een fullyand properly developed, where opposing counsel have %een given opportunity to demolish


8/40

the opposite partyBs case, and where the evidence has %een thoroughly weighed andconsidered, the suit or proceeding is Bappropriate.B

The pertinent sections of rule #9' provideE

B=CTIO- . Parties. F When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil

register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interestwhich would %e affected there%y shall %e made parties to the proceeding.B

B=CTIO- ). Notice and publication. F pon the filing of the petition, the court shall,%y an order, fi> the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasona%lenotice thereof to %e given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall alsocause the order to %e pu%lished once in a wee! for three 78 consecutive wee!s in anewspaper of general circulation in the province.B

B=CTIO- ?. Opposition. F The civil registrar and any person having or claiming anyinterest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen7#?8 days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of pu%lication of such

notice, file his opposition thereto.B

AThus, the persons who must %e made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are F 7#8 the civil registrar, and 7&8 all persons whohave or claim any interest which would %e affected there%y. pon the filing of the petition, it%ecomes the duty of the court to F 7#8 issue an order fi>ing the time and place for thehearing of the petition, and 7&8 cause the order for hearing to %e pu%lished once a wee! forthree 78 consecutive wee!s in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. Thefollowing are li!ewise entitled to oppose the petitionE F 7#8 the civil registrar, and 7&8 anyperson having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction issought.

AIf all these procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for correction andorcancellation of entries in the record of birth even if filed and conducted under Rule !"# of theRevised Rules of $ourt can no longer be described as %summary%. &here can be no doubtthat when an opposition to the petition is filed either by the $ivil Registrar or any personhaving or claiming any interest in the entries sought to be cancelled andor corrected and theopposition is actively prosecuted, the proceedings thereon become adversary

proceedings.A&& 7=mphasis supplied.8

To the mind of the Court of $ppeals, the proceedings ta!en in %oth petitions for cancellation and/orcorrection of entries in the records of %irth of petitioners in the lower courts are appropriateadversary proceedings.

We agree. $s correctly o%served %y the Court of $ppealsE

In the instant case, a petition for cancellation and/or correction of entries of %irth was filed %yprivate respondents and pursuant to the order of the RTC*;anila, dated @e%ruary #, #((,a copy of the order setting the case for hearing was ordered pu%lished once a wee! for three78 consecutive wee!s in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. In the RTC*:aloo!an, there was an actual pu%lication of the order setting the case for hearing in A;ediapdateA once a wee! for three 78 consecutive wee!s. In %oth cases notices of the orderswere ordered served upon the olicitor +eneral, the Civil Registrars of ;anila and :aloo!anand upon the petitioners herein. 5oth orders set the case for hearing and directed the Civil


9/40

Registrars and the other respondents in the case %elow to file their oppositions to the saidpetitions. $ motion to dismiss was conseDuently filed %y herein petitioners ;arcelo, ;ariano,Pa%lo, 2elen, Catalino and =use%io, all surnamed 3ee, and $l%ina 3ee* > >.

>>> >>> >>>

AThe right of the child 6ictoria to inherit from her parents would %e su%stantially impaired ifher status would %e changed from BlegitimateB to BillegitimateB. ;oreover, she would %ee>posed to humiliation and em%arrassment resulting from the stigma of an illegitimatefiliation that she will %ear thereafter. The fact that the notice of hearing of the petition waspu%lished in a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was served upon thetate will not change the nature of the proceedings ta!en. Rule #9', li!e all the otherprovisions of the Rules of Court, was promulgated %y the upreme Court pursuant to its rule*ma!ing authority under ection #, $rticle 6III of the #( Constitution, which directs thatsuch rules Bshall not diminish, increase or modify su%stantive rights.B If Rule #9' were to %e


10/40

e>tended %eyond innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors which are visi%leto the eye or o%vious to the understanding, so as to comprehend su%stantial andcontroversial alterations concerning citi4enship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, orlegitimacy of marriage, without observing the proper proceedings as earlier mentioned , saidrule would there%y %ecome an unconstitutional e>ercise which would tend to increase ormodify su%stantive rights. This situation is not contemplated under $rticle )#& of the Civil

Code.A#

7italics supplied8.

@ar from petitionersB theory, this CourtBs ruling in 'abayo(Rowe vs. Republic & does not e>cluderecourse to Rule #9' of the Revised Rules of Court to effect su%stantial changes or corrections inentries of the civil register. The only reDuisite is that the proceedings under Rule #9' %ean appropriate adversary proceeding as contra*distinguished from a summary proceeding . ThusE

AIf the purpose of the petition for cancellation and/or correction of entries in the civil registerJis merely to correct the clerical errors which are visi%le to the eye or o%vious to theunderstanding, the court may, under a summary procedure, issue an order for the correctionof a mista!e. 2owever, as repeatedly construed, changes which may affect the civil statusfrom legitimate to illegitimate, as well as se>, are su%stantial and controversial alterations

which can only %e allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings depending upon thenature of the issues involved. Changes which affect the civil status or citi4enship of a partyare su%stantial in character and should %e threshed out in a proper action depending uponthe nature of the issues in controversy, and wherein all the parties who may %e affected %ythe entries are notified or represented and evidence is su%mitted to prove the allegations ofthe complaint, and proof to the contrary admitted > > >.A 7=mphasis supplied.8

It is true that in special proceedings formal pleadings and a hearing may %e dispensed with, and theremedy granted upon mere application or motion. 5ut this is not always the case, as when thestatute e>pressly provides.) 2ence, a special proceeding is not always summary. One only has tota!e a loo! at the procedure outlined in Rule #9' to see that what is contemplated therein is not asummary proceeding per se. Rule #9' reDuires pu%lication of the petition three 78 times, i.e., once awee! for three 78 consecutive wee!s 7ec.)8. The Rule also reDuires inclusion as parties of all

persons who claim any interest which would %e affected %y the cancellation or correction 7ec. 8.The civil registrar and any person in interest are also reDuired to file their opposition, if any, withinfifteen 7#?8 days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of pu%lication of such notice 7ec.?8. 3ast, %ut not the least, although the court may ma!e orders e>pediting the proceedings, it is afterhearing that the court shall either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting the same 7ec. 8.

Thus, we find no reason to depart from our ruling in Republic vs. Valencia,? that Rule #9', when allthe procedural reDuirements thereunder are followed, is the appropriate adversary proceeding toeffect su%stantial corrections and changes in entries of the civil register.

It must %e conceded, however, that even after Republic vs. Valencia0 there continues to %e aseesawing of opinion on the issue of whether or not su%stantial corrections in entries of the civil

register may %e effected %y means of Rule #9' in relation to $rticle )#& of the -ew Civil Code. Themore recent cases of 'eonor vs. $ourt of /ppeals andRepublic vs. 'abrador ' do seem to signal areversion to the Ty :ong Tin ruling which delimited the scope of application of $rticle )#& to clericalor typographical errors in entries of the civil register.

In Republic vs. 'abrador , the Court held that Rule #9' cannot %e used to modify, alter or increasesu%stantive rights, such as those involving the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child. We ruled thusE


11/40

AThis issue has %een resolved in 'eonor vs. $ourt of /ppeals. In that case, Respondent;auricio 3eonor filed a petition %efore the trial court see!ing the cancellation of theregistration of his marriage to Petitioner 6irginia 3eonor. 2e alleged, among others, thenullity of their legal vows arising from the Anon*o%servance of the legal reDuirements for avalid marriage.A In de%un!ing the trial courtBs ruling granting such petition, the Court held asfollowsE

BOn its face, the Rule would appear to authori4e the cancellation of any entryregarding AmarriagesA in the civil registry for any reason %y the mere filing of averified petition for the purpose. 2owever, it is not as simple as it loo!s. "octrinally,the only errors that can %e canceled or corrected under this Rule are typographical or clerical errors, not material or su%stantial ones li!e the validity or nullity of a marriage.

$ clerical error is one which is visi%le to the eyes or o%vious to the understandingGerror made %y a cler! or a transcri%erG a mista!e in copying or writing 70lac vs.Republic , 3*#9'0(, -ov. &', #(?'8G or some harmless and innocuous change suchas a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of theoccupation of the parent 7 /nsalada vs. Republic , 3*#9&&0, @e%. #), #(?'8.B

12here the effect of a correction in a civil registry will change the civil status of petitioner and her children from legitimate to illegitimate, the same cannot be granted e3cept only in an adversarial > > > .B

1$learly and unequivocally, the summary procedure under Rule !"#, and for thatmatter under /rticle 4!5 of the $ivil $ode cannot be used by 6auricio to change hisand Virginia1s civil status from married to single and of their three children fromlegitimate to illegitimate > > > B

AThus, where the effect of a correction of an entry in a civil registry will change the status of aperson from Alegitimate to Aillegitimate,A as in arah KitaBs case, the same cannot %e grantedin summary proceedings.A(

It is, therefore, high time that we put an end to the confusion sown %y pronouncements seemingly inconflict with each other, and perhaps, in the process, stem the continuing influ> of cases raising thesame su%stantial issue.

The %asis for the pronouncement that e>tending the scope of Rule #9' to su%stantial corrections isunconstitutional is em%odied in the early case of &y )ong &in vs. Republic )9 that first delineated thee>tent or scope of the matters that may %e changed or corrected pursuant to $rticle )#& of the -ewCivil Code. The upreme Court ruled in this case thatE

A> > > $fter a mature deli%eration, the opinion was reached that what was contemplatedtherein are mere corrections of mista!es that are clerical in nature and not those that mayaffect the civil status or the nationality or citi4enship of the persons involved. If the purpose of

the petition is merely a clerical error then the court may issue an order in order that the erroror mista!e may %e corrected. If it refers to a su%stantial change, which affects the status orciti4enship of a party, the matter should %e threshed out in a proper action depending uponthe nature of the issue involved. uch action can %e found at random in our su%stantive andremedial laws the implementation of which will naturally depend upon the factors andcircumstances that might arise affecting the interested parties. This opinion is predicatedupon the theory that the procedure contemplated in article )#& is summary in nature whichcannot cover cases involving controversial issues.A)#


12/40

This doctrine was ta!en a step further in the case of $hua 2ee, et al. vs. Republic )& where the Courtsaid thatE

A@rom the time the -ew Civil Code too! effect on $ugust 9, #(?9 until the promulgation ofthe Revised Rules of Court on 1anuary #, #(0), there was no law nor rule of courtprescri%ing the procedure to secure udicial authori4ation to effect the desired innocuous

rectifications or alterations in the civil register pursuant to $rticle )#& of the -ew Civil Code.Rule #9' of the Revised Rules of Court now provides for such a procedure which should %elimited solely to the implementation of $rticle )#&, the su%stantive law on the matter ofcorrecting entries in the civil register. Rule !"#, lie all the other provisions of the Rules of$ourt, was promulgated by the upreme $ourt pursuant to its rule(maing authority underection !7 of /rt. VIII of the $onstitution, which directs that such rules of court 1shall notdiminish or increase or modify substantive rights.1 If Rule !"# were to be e3tended beyondinnocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors which are visible to the eye orobvious to the understanding, so as to comprehend substantial and controversial alterationsconcerning citi8enship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, said Rule!"# would thereby become unconstitutional for it would be increasing or modifyingsubstantive rights, which changes are not authori8ed under /rticle 4!5 of the New $ivil$ode.A) 7Italics supplied8.

We venture to say now that the a%ove pronouncements proceed from a wrong premise, that is, theinterpretation that $rticle )#& pertains only to clerical errors of a harmless or innocuous nature,effectively e>cluding from its domain, and the scope of its implementing rule, su%stantial changesthat may affect nationality, status, filiation and the li!e. Why the limited scope of $rticle )#&Lnfortunately, &y )ong &in does not satisfactorily answer this Duestion e>cept to opine that theprocedure contemplated in $rticle )#& is summary in nature and cannot, therefore, cover casesinvolving controversial issues. u%seDuent cases have merely echoed the &y )ong &in doctrinewithout, however, shedding light on the matter.

The flaw in &y )ong &in lies in its theory that $rticle )#& contemplates a summary procedure.

@irst of all, $rticle )#& is a su%stantive law that provides as followsE

A-o entry in a civil register shall %e changed or corrected, without a udicial order.A

It does not provide for a specific procedure of law to %e followed e>cept to say that the corrections or changes must %e effected %y udicial order. $s such, it cannot %e gleaned therefrom that theprocedure contemplated for o%taining such udicial order is summary in nature.

econdly, it is important to note that $rticle )#& uses %oth the terms AcorrectedA and AchangedA. In itsordinary sense, to correct means to ma!e or set rightAG Ato remove the faults or errors fromA)) while tochange means Ato replace something with something else of the same !ind or with something thatserves as a su%stituteA.)? The provision neither Dualifies as to the !ind of entry to %e changed or

corrected nor does it distinguish on the %asis of the effect that the correction or change may have.2ence, it is proper to conclude that all entries in the civil register may %e changed or corrected under

$rticle )#&. What are the entries in the civil registerL We need not go further than $rticles )9 and)9' of the same title to find the answer.

A$rt. )9. $cts, events and udicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall %erecorded in the civil register.A

A$rt. )9'. The following shall %e entered in the civil registerE


13/40

7#8 5irthsG 7&8 marriagesG 78 deathsG 7)8 legal separationsG 7?8 annulments of marriageG 708 udgments declaring marriages void from the %eginningG 78 legitimationsG 7'8 adoptionsG 7(8ac!nowledgments of natural childrenG 7#98 naturali4ationG 7##8 loss, or 7#&8 recovery ofciti4enshipG 7#8 civil interdictionG 7#)8 udicial determination of filiationG 7#?8 voluntaryemancipation of a minorG and 7#08 changes of name.A

It is %eyond dou%t that the specific matters covered %y the preceding provisions include not onlystatus %ut also nationality. Therefore, the &y )ong &i n pronouncement that $rticle )#& does notcontemplate matters that may affect civil status, nationality or citi4enship is erroneous. Thisinterpretation has the effect of isolating $rticle )#& from the rest of the articles in Title H6I, 5oo! I ofthe -ew Civil Code, in clear contravention of the rule of statutory construction that a statute mustalways %e construed as a whole such that the particular meaning to %e attached to any word orphrase is ascertained from the conte>t and the nature of the su%ect treated.)0

Thirdly, Repu%lic $ct -o. (9)') which was passed %y Congress on @e%ruary ', &99# su%stantiallyamended $rticle )#& of the -ew Civil Code, to witE

A=CTIO- #. /uthority to $orrect $lerical or &ypographical 9rror and $hange of -irst Name

or Nicname. F -o entry in a civil register shall %e changed or corrected without a udicialorder, e>cept for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nic!name whichcan %e corrected or changed %y the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consulgeneral in accordance with the provisions of this $ct and its implementing rules andregulations.A

The a%ove law spea!s clearly. Clerical or typographical errors in entries of the civil register are nowto %e corrected and changed without need of a udicial order and %y the city or municipal civilregistrar or consul general. The o%vious effect is to remove from the am%it of Rule #9' the correctionor changing of such errors in entries of the civil register. 2ence, what is left for the scope ofoperation of Rule #9' are su%stantial changes and corrections in entries of the civil register. This isprecisely the opposite of what &y )ong &in and other cases of its genre had said, perhaps anotherindication that it was not sound doctrine after all.

It may %e very well said that Repu%lic $ct -o. (9)' is CongressB response to the confusion wrought%y the failure to delineate as to what e>actly is that so*called summary procedure for changes orcorrections of a harmless or innocuous nature as distinguished from that appropriate adversary

proceeding for changes or corrections of a su%stantial !ind. @or we must admit that though we haveconstantly referred to an appropriate adversary proceeding , we have failed to categorically state ustwhat that procedure is. Repu%lic $ct -o. (9)' now em%odies that summary procedure while Rule#9' is that appropriate adversary proceeding . 5e that as it may, the case at %ar cannot %e decidedon the %asis of Repu%lic $ct -o. (9)' which has prospective application. 2ence, the necessity forthe preceding treatise.

II. The petitioners contend that the private respondents have no cause of action to %ring the cases

%elow as $rticle ## of the @amily Code allows the heirs of the father to %ring an action to impugnthe legitimacy of his children only after his death.)'

$rticle ## providesE

AThe heirs of the hus%and may impugn the filiation of the child within the period prescri%ed inthe preceding article only in the following casesE

A7#8 If the hus%and should die %efore the e>piration of the period fi>ed for %ringing this actionG


14/40

A7&8 If he should die after the filing of the complaint, without having desisted therefromG or

A78 If the child was %orn after the death of the hus%and.A

PetitionerBs contention is without merit.

In the recent case of 0abiera vs. $atotal ,)( we upheld the decision of the Court of $ppeals thataffirmed the udgment of the RTC of 3anao del -orte declaring the %irth certificate of one Teofista+uinto as null and void a% initio, and ordering the 3ocal Civil Registrar of Iligan City to cancel thesame from the Registry of 3ive 5irths. We ruled therein that private respondent PresentacionCatotal, child of spouses =ugenio 5a%iera and 2ermogena CariMosa, had the reDuisite standing toinitiate an action to cancel the entry of %irth of Teofista 5a%iera, another alleged child of the samespouses %ecause she is the one who stands to %e %enefited or inured %y the udgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.?9

We li!ewise held therein thatE

A> > > $rticle ## of the @amily Code is not applica%le to the present case. $ close reading of

the provision shows that it applies to instances in which the father impugns the legitimacy ofhis wifeBs child. The provision, however, presupposes that the child was the undisputedoffspring of the mother. The present case alleges and shows that 2ermogena did not give%irth to petitioner. In other words, the prayer therein is not to declare that petitioner is anillegitimate child of 2ermogena, %ut to esta%lish that the former is not the latterBs child at all >> >. BB?#

imilarly, we ruled in 5enite4*5adua vs. Court of $ppeals?& thatE

APetitionerBs insistence on the applica%ility of $rticles #0), #00, #9 and ## of the @amilyCode to the case at %ench cannot %e sustained. > > >.

>>> >>> >>>

A$ careful reading of the a%ove articles will show that they do not contemplate a situation,li!e in the instant case, where a child is alleged not %e the child of nature or %iological childof a certain couple. Rather, these articles govern a situation where a hus%and 7or his heirs8denies as his own a child of his wife. Thus, under $rticle #00, it is the hus%and who canimpugn the legitimacy of said child %y provingE 7#8 it was physically impossi%le for him tohave se>ual intercourse, with his wife within the first #&9 days of the 99 days whichimmediately preceded the %irth of the childG 7&8 that for %iological or other scientific reasons,the child could not have %een his childG 78 that in case of children conceived through artificialinsemination, the written authori4ation or ratification %y either parent was o%tained throughmista!e, fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence. $rticles #9 and ## reinforce thisreading as they spea! of the prescriptive period within which the hus%and or any of his heirsshould file the action impugning the legitimacy of said child. "ou%tless then, the appellatecourt did not err when it refused to apply these articles to the case at %ench. @or the case at%ench is not one where the heirs of the late 6icente are contending that petitioner is not hischild %y Isa%el. Rather, their clear su%mission is that petitioner was not %orn to 6icente andIsa%el. Our ruling in $abatbat('im vs. Intermediate /ppellate $ourt , #00 CR$ )?#, )?cited in the impugned decision is apropos, vi8 E


15/40

BPetitionersB recourse to $rticle &0 of the -ew Civil Code now $rt. #9 of the @amilyCodeJ is not well ta!en. This legal provision refers to an action to impugn legitimacy.It is inapplica%le to this case %ecause this is not an action to impugn the legitimacy of a child, %ut an action of the private respondents to claim their inheritance as legalheirs of their childless deceased aunt. They do not claim that petitioner 6ioletaCa%at%at 3im is an illegitimate child of the deceased, %ut that she is not the

decedentBs child at all. 5eing neither legally adopted child, nor an ac!nowledgednatural child, nor a child %y legal fiction of =speran4a Ca%at%at, 6ioleta is not a legalheir of the deceased. AB?

III. Petitioners claim that private respondentsB cause of action had already prescri%ed as more thanfive 7?8 years had lapsed %etween the registration of the latest %irth among the petitioners in #(09and the filing of the actions in "ecem%er of #((& and @e%ruary of #((.?)

We disagree. $s correctly pointed out %y the Court of $ppeals, inasmuch as no law or rulespecifically prescri%es a fi>ed time for filing the special proceeding under Rule #9' in relation to

$rticle )#& of the -ew Civil Code, it is the following provision of the -ew Civil Code that appliesE

A$rt. ##)(. other actions whose periods are not fi>ed in this Code or in other laws must %e%rought within five years from the time the right of action accrues.A

The right of action accrues when there e>ists a cause of action, which consists of three 78 elements,namelyE a8 a right in favor of the plaintiff %y whatever means and under whatever law it arises or iscreatedG %8 an o%ligation on the part of the defendant to respect such rightG and c8 an act or omissionon the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff. It is only when the last elementoccurs or ta!es place that it can %e said in law that a cause of action has arisen.??

It is indu%ita%le that private respondents have a cause of action. The last element of their cause ofaction, that is, the act of their father in falsifying the entries in petitionersB %irth records, occurredmore than thirty 798 years ago. trictly spea!ing, it was upon this occurrence that privaterespondentsB right of action or right to sue accrued. 2owever, we must ta!e into account the fact thatit was only sometime in #('( that private respondents discovered that they in fact had a cause ofaction against petitioners who continue to use said falsified %irth records.

2ence, it would result in manifest inustice if we were to deprive private respondents of their right toesta%lish the truth a%out a fact, in this case, petitionersB true mother, and their real status, simply%ecause they had discovered the dishonesty perpetrated upon them %y their common father at amuch later date. This is especially true in the case of private respondents who, as their fatherBslegitimate children, did not have any reason to suspect that he would commit such deception againstthem and deprive them of their sole right to inherit from their motherBs 7:eh hio! ChengBs8 estate. Itwas only sometime in #('( that private respondentsB suspicions were aroused and confirmed. @romthat time until #((& and #((, less than five 7?8 years had lapsed.

Petitioners would have us rec!on the five*year prescriptive period from the date of the registration ofthe last %irth among the petitioners*si%lings in #(09, and not from the date private respondents haddiscovered the false entries in petitionersB %irth records in #('(. Petitioners %ase their position on thefact that %irth records are pu%lic documents, hence, the period of prescription for the right of actionavaila%le to the private respondents started to run from the time of the registration of their %irthcertificates in the Civil Registry.

We cannot agree with petitionersB thin!ing on that point.


16/40

It is true that the %oo!s ma!ing up the Civil Register and all documents relating thereto are pu%licdocuments and shall %e prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained.?0 Petitioners li!en their%irth records to land titles, pu%lic documents that serve as notice to the whole world. nfortunatelyfor the petitioners, this analogy does not hold water. nli!e a title to a parcel of land, a personBsparentage cannot %e acDuired %y prescription. One is either %orn of a particular mother or not. It isthat simple.

I6. @inally, petitioners accuse private respondents of forum shopping. They enumerate the otheractions filed %y private respondents against them prior to the filing of their Rule #9' petitions in thelower courts, as followsE

7#8 $ criminal complaint for falsification of entries in the %irth certificates filed against theirfather as principal and against defendants as alleged accessoriesG

7&8 $ petition for the cancellation of the naturali4ation certificate of their father, 3ee Te!hengG and

78 $ petition for partition of :eh hio! ChengBs estate.?

$ccording to the petitioners, all the three 78 actions a%ove*mentioned, as well as the Rule #9'petitions, su%ect of the case %efore us, raise the common issue of whether petitioners are thenatural children of :eh hio! Cheng or Tiu Chuan. They contend that in all these cases, the udge or hearing officer would have to resolve this issue in order to determine whether or not to grant therelief prayed for.?'

@orum shopping is present when in the two or more cases pending there is identity of parties, rightsor causes of action and reliefs sought.?( =ven a cursory e>amination of the pleadings filed %y privaterespondents in their various cases against petitioners would reveal that at the very least there is noidentity of rights or causes of action and reliefs prayed for. The present case has its roots in two 7&8petitions filed under Rule #9', the purpose of which is to correct and/or cancel certain entries in

petitionersB %irth records. uffice it to state, the cause of action in these Rule #9' petitions and therelief sought therefrom are very different from those in the criminal complaint against petitioners andtheir father which has for its cause of action, the commission of a crime as defined and penali4edunder the Revised Penal Code, and which see!s the punishment of the accusedG or the action forthe cancellation of 3ee Te! heng naturali4ation certificate which has for its cause of action thecommission %y 3ee Te! heng of an immoral act, and his ultimate deportation for its o%ectG or forthat matter, the action for partition of :eh hio! ChengBs estate which has for its cause of action theprivate respondentsB right under the -ew Civil Code to inherit from their motherBs estate.

We therefore concur in the finding of the Court of $ppeals that there is no forum shopping to spea!of in the concept that this is descri%ed and contemplated in Circular -o. &'*(# of the upreme Court.2CI="

W2=R=@OR=, the petition is here%y "=-I=" and the assailed decision of the Court of $ppealsdated Octo%er &', #(() is $@@IR;=".

O OR"=R=".

0ellosillo, 6endo8a, :uisumbing, and 0uena, ;;., concur.


17/40


18/40

C%iao &e' Li( vs. )osa, 1!6 SCRA 366 , *ece(ber 2$, 1$#6

Case Title : ANTONIO CHIAO BEN LIM, petitione, "!. HON. MARIANO A.

$OSA, &*d)e o+ t'e Co*t o+ #i!t In!tan(e o+ Ce5*, Ban(' % and t'e o(a

(i"i e)i!ta o+ t'e Cit3 o+ Ce5*, e!pondent!.Case Nature : APPEAL 53

(etioai to e"ie6 t'e ode! o+ t'e Co*t o+ #i!t In!tan(e o+ Ce5*, B. %.

$o!a, &.Sllabi Class : Ci"i La67

Syllabi :1. Civil La ; ersons and ?a-ily Relations Correction of entries in thebirth records Changes in the birth entry regarding a person@s citi9enshipno" allo"ed, as long as adversary proceedings are held Rule 108 of theRules of Court provides only the procedure or -echanis- for the proper

enforce-ent of the substantive la" e-bodied in %rt. (1& of the Civil Code.!The Aalencia ruling has in effect adopted the above!stated vie"s insofar as it no" allo"s changes in the birth entry regarding a person@s citi9enship as

long as adversary proceedings are held. 3here such a change is ordered,the Court "ill not be establishing a substantive right but only correcting orrectifying an erroneous entry in the civil registry as authori9ed by la". Inshort, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides only the procedure or-echanis- for the proper enforce-ent of the substantive la" e-bodied in %rticle (1& of the Civil Code and so does not violate the Constitution.

*ivisio': EN BANC

*oc+et Nu(ber: No. L-1;

Cou'sel: Eeno Andae!

o'e'te: CRU$

*ispositive ortio':

9HERE#ORE, t'e ('aen)ed Ode! ae 'ee53 !et a!ide, and Spe(ia

Po(eedin) No. 0;


19/40

9leno /ndales for petitioner.

CRU', J.:

This is an appeal %y certiorari from two Orders 1 of the respondent udge dismissing a petition for thecorrection of an allegedly wrong entry in the %irth records of :im 1oseph descri%ing him as a Chinesenational instead of a @ilipino citi4en.

The petitioner had offered to prove the error through several pieces of evidence, among them anearlier %irth certificate of :im 1oseph descri%ing him as a @ilipino citi4en, the %irth certificates of hisseven %rothers and sisters all descri%ing them as @ilipinos, and a decision of the Court of $ppealsrecogni4ing their grandfather as a @ilipino citi4en. 2

On opposition %y the local civil registrar of Ce%u, 3 however, the respondent udge dismissed thepetition and sustained the contention that only clerical errors were allowed to %e corrected in the summaryproceedings authori4ed under $rticle )#& of the Civil Code and Rule #9' of the Rules of Court.

u%stantial issues li!e citi4enship were not covered. In effect, it was held the petition was for a udicialdeclaration of citi4enship, which was not allowed under e>isting rules.

$rticle )#& of the Civil Code simply providesE A-o entry in the civil registry shall %e changed orcorrected without a udicial order.A

In fairness to the respondent udge, there was a%undant urisprudence to lend support to his Ordersat the time they were issued. ince then, however, the strict doctrine announced in those cases has%een rela>ed, most recently in the case of Republic v. Valencia, supported %y twelve mem%ers of thisCourt with only one other mem%er not ta!ing part.

In that case 7arising, incidentally, also in Ce%u City8, there was a petition for the correction in the %irthentries of two persons in the local civil registry, specifically to change their citi4enship from AChineseAto A@ilipino,A their status as children from AlegitimateA to Aillegitimate,A and their motherBs status fromAmarriedA to Asingle.A The motion to dismiss filed %y the local civil registrar having %een denied, a full*%lown trial was held and the changes sought were thereafter ordered %y the trial court. The Repu%licof the Philippines then came to this Court to Duestion the decision, invo!ing su%stantially the samegrounds on which the Orders now %eing challenged were %ased.

In a well*reasoned and e>haustive decision, 1ustice 2ugo =. +utierre4 declared inter alia<

It is undou%tedly true that if the su%ect matter of a petition is not for the correction of clericalerrors of a harmless and innocuous nature, %ut one involving nationality or citi4enship, whichis indisputa%ly su%stantial as well as controverted, affirmative relief cannot %e granted in aproceeding summary in nature. 2owever, it is also true that a right in law may %e enforced

and a wrong may %e remedied as long as the appropriate remedy is used. This Courtadheres to the principle that even su%stantial errors in a civil registry may %e corrected andthe true facts esta%lished provided the parties aggrieved %y the error avail themselves of theappropriate adversary proceeding. $s a matter of fact, the opposition of the olicitor +eneraldated @e%ruary &9, #(9 while Duestioning the use of $rticle )#& of the Civil Code in relationto Rule #9' of the Revised Rules of Court admits that Bthe entries sought to %e correctedshould %e threshed out in an appropriate proceeding.


20/40

What is meant %y Bappropriate adversary proceedings B5lac!Bs 3aw "ictionary definesadversary proceedingB as followsE

One having opposing partiesG contested, as distinguished from an e> parte application, oneof which the party see!ing relief has given legal warning to the other party, and afforded thelatter an opportunity to contest it. =>cludes an adoption proceeding. 7Platt v. ;agagnini, #',

p. #0, #', ##9 Was. (8. =>re??an@A!BwC;

>>> >>> >>>

The courtBs role in hearing the petition to correct certain entries in the civil registry is toascertain the truth a%out the facts recorded therein.nder our system of administering

ustice, truth is %est ascertained or appro>imated %y trial conducted under the adversarysystem. 7

>>> >>> >>>

Provided the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have %een fully

and properly developed, where opposing counsel have %een given opportunity to demolishthe opposite partyBs case, and where the evidence has %een thoroughly weighed andconsidered, the suit or proceeding is Bappropriate.B

The pertinent sections of Rule #9' provideE

=C. . Parties. F 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 %e affectedthere%y shall %e made parties to the proceeding.

=C. ). Notice and publication. F pon the filing of the petition, the court shall, %y an order,fi> the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasona%le notice thereof to %e

given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to %epu%lished once in a wee! for three 78 consecutive wee!s in a newspaper of generalcirculation in the province.

=C. ?. Opposition. F The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interestunder the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen 7#?8 days fromnotice of the petition, or from the last date of pu%lication of such notice, file his oppositionthereto.

Thus, the persons who must %e made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation orcorrection of an entry in the civil registrar are*7#8 the civil registrar, and 7&8 all persons whohave or claim any interest which would %e affected there%y. pon the filing of the petition, it

%ecomes the duty of the court to 7#8 issue an order fi>ing the time and place for the hearingof the petition, and 7&8 cause the order for hearing to %e pu%lished once a wee! for three 78consecutive wee!s in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. The following areli!ewise entitled to oppose the petitionE 7#8 the civil registrar, and 7&8 any persons having orclaiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought.

If all these procedural reDuirements have %een followed, a petition for correction and/orcancellation of entries in the record of %irth even if filed and conducted under Rule #9' of theRevised Rules of Court can no longer %e descri%ed as AsummaryA.There can %e no dou%t


21/40

that when an opposition to the petition is filed either %y the Civil Registrar or any personhaving or claiming any interest in the entries sought to %e cancelled and/or corrected and theopposition is actively prosecuted, the proceedings thereon %ecome adversary proceedings.

>>> >>> >>>

We are of the opinion that the petition filed %y the respondent in the lower court %y way of aspecial proceeding for cancellation and/or correction of entries in the civil register with thereDuisite notice and pu%lication and the recorded proceedings that actually too! placethereafter could very well %e regarded as that proper suit or appropriate action. 8

In a num%er of earlier cases, the Court has ruled that the %irth entry regarding a personBs citi4enshipcould not %e changed under Rule #9' as this would involve su%stantive rights that the rules of courtcould not Adiminish, increase or modifyA under the Constitution. :

Thus, in $hua 2ee v. Republic, 10 a unanimous Court declared that, Aif Rule #9' were to %e e>tended%eyond innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors which are visi%le to the eye or o%vious tothe understanding, so as to comprehend su%stantial and controversial alterations concerning citi4enship,

legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, said Rule #9' would there%y %ecomeunconstitutional for it would %e increasing or modifying su%stantive rights, which changes are notauthori4ed under $rticle )#& of the new Civil Code.A

In 2ong v. Republic, 11 however, 1ustice 6icente $%ad antos, in a separate concurrence, e>pressed theview that $rticle )#&, which Rule #9' was supposed to implement, Adoes not say that it applies only tononcontroversial issues and that the procedure to %e used is summary in nature,A adding that A$rticle )#&contemplates all !inds of issues and all !inds of procedures.A 1ustice Pacifico de Castro, in a dissentingopinion, agreed with him and said 7spea!ing also of $rticle )#&8 that Ano prohi%ition may %e seen from itse>press provision, nor %y mere implication, against correction of a su%stantial error as one affecting thestatus of a person.A $mplifying on this view, he declared in another dissenting opinion in Republic v. de la$ru8 E 12

It is not accurate to say that Rule #9' would %e rendered unconstitutional if it would allow thecorrection of more than mere harmless clerical error, as it would there%y increase or modifysu%stantive rights which the Constitution e>pressly for%ids %ecause $rticle )#& of the CivilCode, the su%stantive law sought to %e implemented %y Rule #9', allows only the correctionof innocuous clerical errors not those affecting the status of persons. $s was stressed in thedissent on the aforesaid Wong Case, $rticle )#& does not limit in its e>press terms nor %ymere implication, the correction authori4ed %y it to that of mere clerical errors. pon aconsideration of this fact, it would %e reasona%le and ustified to rule that $rticle )#&contemplates of correction of erroneous entry of whatever nature, procedural safeguardshaving only to %e provided for, as was the manifest purpose of Rule #9'.

It is worth emphasing that proceedings for the correction of erroneous entry should not %econsidered as esta%lishing oneBs status in a legal manner conclusively %eyond dispute orcontroversion, for as provided %y $rticle )#9 of the Civil Code, Bthe %oo!s ma!ing up the civilregister and all documents relating thereto ... shall %e prima facie evidence of the factstherein contained.B 2ence, the status as corrected would not have a superior Duality forevidentiary purpose. ;oreover, the correction should not imply a change of status %ut a mererectification of error to ma!e the matter corrected spea! for the truth. There is, therefore, noincrease or diminution of su%stantive right, as is the %asis for holding that Rule #9' would %eunconstitutional if held to allow ccrrection of more than mere harmless and innocuousclerical errors.


22/40

The 6alencia ruling has in effect adopted the a%ove*stated views insofar as it now allows changes inthe %irth entry regarding a personBs citi4enship as long as adversary proceedings are held. Wheresuch a change is ordered, the Court will not %e esta%lishing a su%stantive right %ut only correcting orrectifying an erroneous entry in the civil registry as authori4ed %y law. In short, Rule #9' of the Rulesof Court provides only the procedure or mechanism for the proper enforcement of the su%stantivelaw em%odied in $rticle )#& of the Civil Code and so does not violate the Constitution. We note that

in the case at %ar the petition was dismissed outright without a trial %eing held, on the ustificationthat it was not permitted. In the light of the 6alencia ruling, the Orders of the respondent udge mustnow %e reversed, to give way to the appropriate proceedings necessary to the resolution of thesu%stantial issue raised %y the petitioner. The records show that the pu%lication reDuirement hasalready %een complied with. 13 The ne>t step, therefore, is for the petitioner and all adverse andinterested parties to %e given their day in court in a regular trial on the merits.

W2=R=@OR=, the challenged Orders are here%y set aside, and pecial Proceeding -o. ?(0*R ofthe Regional Trial Court of Ce%u, 5ranch 6, is reinstated for trial on the merits without delay. -opronouncement as to costs.

O OR"=R=".

&eehanee, $.;.,


23/40

-leosia vs. Local Civil Re/istrar of ueo' Cit, 3#2 SCRA 22 , a 0$,

2002

Case Title : MA. LOUR4ES BARRIENTOS ELEOSI4A, +o and in 5e'a+ o+ 'e

8ino ('id, CHARLES CHRISTIAN ELEOSI4A, petitione, "!. LOCAL CI%IL

REGISTRAR O# >UE$ON CITY, and CARLOS %ILLENA BORBON,

e!pondent!.Case Nature : PETITION +o e"ie6 on (etioai o+ a de(i!iono+ t'e Re)iona Tia Co*t o+ >*e?on Cit3, B. @


24/40

Cou'sel: >*ia?on, Ma2ainta, Baot, Toe! I5aa, T'e Soi(ito Genea

o'e'te: PUNO

*ispositive ortio':

IN %IE9 9HEREO#, t'e petition i! GRANTE4 and t'e Ode dated A*)*!t ;,/


25/40

consecutive wee!s, in a newspaper of general circulation and pu%lished in ;etro ;anila, to%e selected %y raffle, at the e>pense of the petitioner, at which date, time and place, thepetitioner shall appear and prove her petition, in that all other persons having or claiming anyinterest thereon shall also appear and show cause why, if any, they have, the petition shallnot %e granted.!Dwphi!.nEt

3et copies of this notice %e furnished the petitioner, and together with copies of the petition,respondent Carlos 6illena 5or%onG the Offices of the 3ocal Civil Registrar of Nue4on City andthe olicitor +eneral, who are given fifteen 7#?8 days from notice of the petition, or from thelast date of pu%lication of such notice, within which to file their opposition thereto, if any. Inthe event that the olicitor +eneral may not %e a%le to appear on the scheduled hearing, todesignate the City Prosecutor of Nue4on City to appear for and in %ehalf of the tate.

O OR"=R=".A)

On 1une &0, #((, the trial court issued another order setting the date for the presentation ofevidence on 1uly &, #((. It statedE

AConsidering that there is no opposition filed despite notice to the olicitor +eneral ascontained in the notice of hearing dated $pril &, #(( reDuiring that office to file theiropposition, if any, to the petition for correction of entries in the %irth certificate of minor childCharles Christian =leosida, the petitioner will %e allowed to present compliance with the

urisdictional reDuirements and at the same time initially present evidence on 1uly &, #((,at 'E9 oBcloc! in the morning.A?

On $ugust &?, #((, the trial court motu proprio dismissed the petition for lac! of merit. It ruledE

AIt is an esta%lished urisprudence that, only C3=RIC$3 =RROR O@ $ 2$R;3= $-"I--OCO -$TR= li!eE misspelled name, occupation of the parents, etc., may %e thesu%ect of a udicial order 7contemplated under $rticle )#& of the -ew Civil Code8,

authori4ing changes or corrections andE -OT as may affect the CI6I3 T$T,-$TIO-$3IT< OR CITIK=-2IP O@ T2= P=RO- I-6O36=".

In the present case, it is very clear that the changes desired %y the petitioner will ultimatelyaffect the CI6I3 T$T O@ C2$R3= C2RITI$-, as she wants the Court to "irect theCivil Registrar of Nue4on City to su%stitute her maiden name, =3=OI"$, with that of5OR5O-G to delete the information supplied in IT=; #&, respecting the date and place ofmarriage of parents, on the ground that she was never married to respondent C$R3O6I33=-$ 5OR5O- and amend the information in IT=; #), respecting the name of theinformant, from ;$. 3OR"= =. 5OR5O- to ;$. 3OR"= 5. =3=OI"$, and isindicative of petitionerBs intention and device to esta%lish that C2$R3= C2RITI$-Bs civilstatus as I33=+ITI;$T=.

With the petitionBs ultimate purpose on the part of petitioner to secure udicial order, whichwould authori4e a change in the civil status of C2$R3= C2RITI$-, this Court, finds theaction improper. The matters desired to %e cancelled and/or changed %y petitioner cannot %econsidered falling under the am%it of the words Bclerical errors of a harmless and innocuousnature.B

W2=R=@OR=, for 3$C: O@ ;=RIT, the petition is now ;OT PROPIO 7sic8 dismissed.A0


26/40

Petitioner fled the instant petition for review raising the issue of whether corrections of entries in thecertificate of live %irth pursuant to $rticle )#& of the Civil Code, in relation to Rule #9' of the Rules ofCourt may %e allowed even if the errors to %e corrected are su%stantial and not merely clerical errorsof a harmless and innocuous nature.

The Court reDuired the respondents to comment on the petition. The Office of the olicitor +eneral

7O+8 filed a ;anifestation in 3ieu of Comment. The O+ su%mitted that even su%stantial errors inthe civil registry may %e corrected provided that the parties aggrieved %y the error avail themselvesof the appropriate adversary proceeding. Thus it argued that even if the petition see!s the correctionand eventual change in the civil status of Charles Christian, the same can %e ordered %y the court aslong as all the parties who may %e affected %y the entries are notified and represented.' RespondentCarlos 5or%on, on the other hand, failed to su%mit his comment on the petition despite severalnotices from this Court. 2ence, on 1anuary &), &99#, the Court dispensed with the filing ofrespondent 5or%onBs comment and gave due course to the petition.(

We find merit in the petition. Rule #9' of the Revised Rules of Court provides the procedure forcancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. The proceedings under said rule may either%e summary or adversary in nature. If the correction sought to %e made in the civil register is clerical,

then the procedure to %e adopted is summary. If the rectification affects the civil status, citi4enship or nationality of a party, it is deemed su%stantial, and the procedure to %e adopted is adversary.#9 This isour ruling in Re/b*c 5. (#e$c*### where we held that even su%stantial errors in a civil registrymay %e corrected and the true facts esta%lished under Rule #9' provided the parties aggrieved %ythe error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. $n appropriate adversary suit orproceeding is one where the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have%een fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have %een given opportunity todemolish the opposite partyBs case, and where the evidence has %een thoroughly weighed andconsidered. The Court further laid down the procedural reDuirements to ma!e the proceedings under Rule #9' adversary, thusE

AThe pertinent sections of Rule #9' provideE

"EC. 3. P#rt*e.=When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register issought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would%e affected there%y shall %e made parties to the proceeding. !Dwphi!.nEt

"EC. . Not*ce #$% /b*c#t*o$.=pon the filing of the petition, the court shall, %yan order, fi> the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasona%lenotice thereof to %e given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall alsocause the order to %e pu%lished once in a wee! for three (8 consecutive wee!s in anewspaper of general circulation in the province.

"EC. . Oo*t*o$.=The civil registrar and any person having or claiming anyinterest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen

7#?8 days from notice, file his opposition thereto.

Thus, the persons who must %e made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation orcorrection of an entry in the civil register areF7#8 the civil registrar, and 7&8 all persons whohave or claim any interest which would %e affected there%y. pon the filing of the petition, it%ecomes the duty of the court toF7#8 issue an order fi>ing the time and place for the hearingof the petition, and 7&8 cause the order for hearing to %e pu%lished once a wee! for three 78consecutive wee!s in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. The following are


27/40

li!ewise entitled to oppose the petitionE**7#8 the civil registrar, and 7&8 any person having orclaiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought.

If all these procedural reDuirements have %een followed, a petition for correction and/orcancellation of entries in the record of %irth even if filed and conducted under Rule #9' of theRevised Rules of Court can no longer %e descri%ed as BsummaryB. >>>A#&

It is true in the case at %ar that the changes sought to %e made %y petitioner are not merely clericalor harmless errors %ut su%stantial ones as they would affect the status of the marriage %etweenpetitioner and Carlos 5or%on, as well as the legitimacy of their son, Charles Christian. Changes ofsuch nature, however, are now allowed under Rule #9' in accordance with our ruling in Re/b*c5. (#e$c*# provided that the appropriate procedural reDuirements are complied with. The recordsshow that upon receipt of the petition, the trial court issued a notice of hearing setting the hearing on1une &0, #(( at 'E9 in the morning at Room ##', 2all of 1ustice, Nue4on City. The trial courtli!ewise ordered the pu%lication of said notice once a wee! for three 78 consecutive wee!s in anewspaper of general circulation and its posting in selected places in ;etro ;anila. The noticestated that the petitioner shall prove her petition during said hearing and all other persons having orclaiming any interest thereon shall also appear and show if there is any reason why the petition

should not %e granted. Respondents Carlos 6illena 5or%on, the 3ocal Civil Registrar of Nue4on Cityand the olicitor +eneral were all furnished with a copy of the notice of hearing together with a copyof the petition. On 1une &0, #((, the trial court issued a second order giving the petitioner anopportunity to show compliance with the urisdictional reDuirements and to present evidence duringthe hearing set on 1uly &, #((. The foregoing satisfy all the reDuirements of Rule #9' to ma!e it anadversary proceeding. It was therefore an error for the trial court to dismiss the petition motu

proprio without allowing the petitioner to present evidence to support her petition and all the otherpersons who have an interest over the matter to oppose the same. !Dwphi!.nEt

IN (IE> >HEREO&, the petition is GRANE6 and the Order dated $ugust &?, #(( of the RTC ofNue4on City, 5ranch '(, su%ect of the petition at %ar is set aside. The case is REMAN6E6 to thecourt a Duo for further proceedings.

"O OR6ERE6.

Favide, ;r., )apu


28/40

Silverio vs. Republic, "37 SCRA 373 , October 1$, 2007

Case Title : ROMMEL &ACINTO 4ANTES SIL%ERIO, petitione, "!. REPUBLIC

O# THE PHILIPPINES, e!pondent.Case Nature : PETITION +o e"ie6 on

(etioai o+ a de(i!ion o+ t'e Co*t o+ Appea!.

Sllabi Class : C'an)e o+ Na8e7Cei(a Eo La6 DRA To reiterate, the statutes define "ho -ay file petitions for change of firstna-e and for correction or change of entries in the civil registry, "here they -ay be filed, "hat grounds -ay be invo6ed, "hat proof -ust be presentedand "hat procedures shall be observed. If the legislature intends to conferon a person "ho has undergone se reassign-ent the privilege to changehis na-e and se to confor- "ith his reassigned se, it has to enactlegislation laying do"n the guidelines in turn governing the confer-ent of

that privilege. It -ight be theoretically possible for this Court to "rite a protocol on "hen a person -ay be recogni9ed as having successfullychanged his se. Do"ever, this Court has no authority to fashion a la" onthat -atter, or on anything else. The Court cannot enact a la" "here no la" eists. It can only apply or interpret the "ritten "ord of its co!eual branchof govern-ent, Congress.

http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/345769873865/AKP760-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Change%20of%20Name/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20The%20State%20has%20an%20interest%20in%20the%20names%20borne%20by%20individuals%20and%20entities%20for%20purposes%20of%20identification/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20The%20State%20has%20an%20interest%20in%20the%20names%20borne%20by%20individuals%20and%20entities%20for%20purposes%20of%20identification/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20If%20the%20legislature%20intends%20to%20confer%20on%20a%20person%20who%20has%20undergone%20sex%20reassignment%20the%20privilege%20to%20change%20his%20name%20and%20sex%20to%20conform%20with%20his%20reassigned%20sex,%20it%20has%20to%20enact%20legislation%20laying%20down%20the%20guidelines%20in%20turn%20governing%20the%20conferment%20of%20that%20privilege/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20If%20the%20legislature%20intends%20to%20confer%20on%20a%20person%20who%20has%20undergone%20sex%20reassignment%20the%20privilege%20to%20change%20his%20name%20and%20sex%20to%20conform%20with%20his%20reassigned%20sex,%20it%20has%20to%20enact%20legislation%20laying%20down%20the%20guidelines%20in%20turn%20governing%20the%20conferment%20of%20that%20privilege/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20If%20the%20legislature%20intends%20to%20confer%20on%20a%20person%20who%20has%20undergone%20sex%20reassignment%20the%20privilege%20to%20change%20his%20name%20and%20sex%20to%20conform%20with%20his%20reassigned%20sex,%20it%20has%20to%20enact%20legislation%20laying%20down%20the%20guidelines%20in%20turn%20governing%20the%20conferment%20of%20that%20privilege/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20If%20the%20legislature%20intends%20to%20confer%20on%20a%20person%20who%20has%20undergone%20sex%20reassignment%20the%20privilege%20to%20change%20his%20name%20and%20sex%20to%20conform%20with%20his%20reassigned%20sex,%20it%20has%20to%20enact%20legislation%20laying%20down%20the%20guidelines%20in%20turn%20governing%20the%20conferment%20of%20that%20privilege/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20If%20the%20legislature%20intends%20to%20confer%20on%20a%20person%20who%20has%20undergone%20sex%20reassignment%20the%20privilege%20to%20change%20his%20name%20and%20sex%20to%20conform%20with%20his%20reassigned%20sex,%20it%20has%20to%20enact%20legislation%20laying%20down%20the%20guidelines%20in%20turn%20governing%20the%20conferment%20of%20that%20privilege/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/345769873865/AKP760-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Change%20of%20Name/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20The%20State%20has%20an%20interest%20in%20the%20names%20borne%20by%20individuals%20and%20entities%20for%20purposes%20of%20identification/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20The%20State%20has%20an%20interest%20in%20the%20names%20borne%20by%20individuals%20and%20entities%20for%20purposes%20of%20identification/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20If%20the%20legislature%20intends%20to%20confer%20on%20a%20person%20who%20has%20unde

Documents

Cases- Change of Name