In The Matter of Petition for
Correction of Entry v. Republic | G.R. No. 214064 | Aug. 24, 2016 | Topic: Petition for Correction of Entries
FACTS
- For almost sixty (60) years,
petitioner has been using the surname "Almojuela." However, when he
requested for a copy of his birth certificate from the National Statistics
Office (NSO), he was surprised to discover that he was registered as "Felipe
Condeno," instead of "Felipe Almojuela." Thus, he filed a Petition
for Correction of Entry under Rule 108 in his NSO birth certificate before
the RTC.
- Petitioner alleged that he was
born on February 25, 1950 in Pandan, Catanduanes and is the acknowledged
natural child of Jorge V. Almojuela (Jorge), former governor of the said
province, and Francisca B. Condeno (Francisca), both deceased. He averred that
while his parents did not marry each other, he has been known to his family and
friends as "Felipe Almojuela" and has been using the said surname in
all of his official and legal documents, including his xxx appointment as
Provincial General Services Officer, report of rating in the First Grade
Entrance Examination of the Civil Service Commission, Philippine Passport,
Marriage Contract, and Certificate of Compensation Payment/Tax Withheld.
- In support of his petition, he
also presented a copy of his birth certificate issued by the Local Civil
Registrar of the Municipality of Pandan, Catanduanes showing that "Felipe
Almojuela" appears as his registered full name.
- The RTC initially dismissed the
petition on the ground that petitioner's recourse to Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court was improper, as the petition did not involve mere correction of clerical
errors but a matter of filiation which should, thus, be filed in accordance
with Rule 103 of the same Rules
- Petitioner moved for
reconsideration, maintaining that the issue of filiation is immaterial since he
was only seeking a correction of entry by including the surname
"Almojuela" to "Felipe Condeno," his first and middle names
appearing on his birth certificate with the NSO. He likewise insisted that the
name "Jorge V. Almojuela" was clearly indicated thereon as the name
of his father.
- RTC granted. OSG moved for reconsideration.
RTC denied the OSG's motion and reiterated its stance that based on the
allegations thereon, the petition was only for the correction of entry in the
records of the NSO.
- CA reversed RTC because of
failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 108, where his failure to
implead and notify the Local Civil Registrar and his halfsiblings as mandated
by the rules precluded the RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over the case; and
that the correction of entry sought by petitioner was not merely clerical in
nature, but necessarily involved a determination of his filiation.
ISSUE: Was the CA correct in nullifying
the correction of entry on the ground of lack of jurisdiction?
RULING:
- Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
provides the procedure for the correction of substantial changes in the civil
registry through an appropriate adversary proceeding. An adversary proceeding
is defined as one "having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished
from an ex parte application, one of which the party seeking relief has given
legal warning to the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to
contest it.
- In Republic v. Coseteng Magpayo, the Court emphasized that in a
petition for a substantial correction or change of entry in the civil registry
under Rule 108, it is mandatory that the civil registrar, as well as all
other persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected
thereby be made respondents for the reason that they are indispensable parties.
- In this case, the CA correctly
found that petitioner failed to implead both the Local Civil Registrar and his
half siblings. Although he claims that his halfsiblings have acknowledged and
accepted him, the procedural rules nonetheless mandate compliance with the
requirements in the interest of fair play and due process and to afford the
person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses
- Although it is true that in
certain instances, the Court has allowed the subsequent publication of a notice
of hearing to cure the petition's lack/failure to implead and notify the
affected or interested parties, such as when: (a) earnest efforts were made by
petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested parties; (b) the
parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings; (c) there is no
actual or presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested parties; or,
(d) when a party is inadvertently left out, these exceptions are,
unfortunately, unavailing in this case.
- In sum, the failure to strictly
comply with the above discussed requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
for correction of an entry in the civil registrar involving substantial and
controversial alterations renders the entire proceedings therein null and void.
- Republic v. CA The absence of an
indispensable party in a case renders ineffectual all proceedings subsequent to
the filing of the complaint including the judgment.
- The necessary
consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar as an indispensable
party and to give notice by publication of the petition for correction of entry
was to render the proceeding of the trial court, so far as the correction of
entry was concerned, null and void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party
and as to the subject matter. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED
Comments
Post a Comment