REPUBLIC - v - MEDINA
SECOND DIVISION, December 15, 1982
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and JOSE ZOLETA
in his capacity as Acting Local Civil Registrar of Lucena City, vs.THE HONORABLE DELIA P. MEDINA, in her capacity
as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch II, and
JUANITO K. UY. MAKASIAR, J.
2.
petitioner, through the Solicitor General,
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that respondent court had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, arguing that
"substantial alteraction, such as those affecting the status and
citizenship of a person in the Civil Registry Records," can only be
established in "an appropriate adversary proceeding as a remedy for the
adjudication of real and justiciable controversies involving actual conflict of
rights, the final determination of which depends upon the resolution of the
issues of nationality, paternity, filiation or legitimacy of the marital status
for which existing substantive and procedural laws as well as other rules of
court amply provide."
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
1.
Juanito K. Uy filed a complaint with the CFI
Quezon presided by respondent Judge Medina, praying "that the Local Civil
Registrar and/or the Acting Local Civil Registrar of Lucena City be ordered to
change the entry appearing (birth certificate of his daughter), from "Chinese"
to "Filipino" as his true, actual and present legal citizenship.
a.
he has been a Filipino by naturalization
b.
that his wife, Eleanor Umali, also a
Filipino, gave birth to their daughter Joyal Umali Uy in the Calayan Women's
Hospital (now Medical Center-Lucena) in Lucena City
c.
that in the preparation of Joyal Umali Uy's
birth certificate, without the knowledge and consent of private respondent, a
mistake was committed with respect to the latter's nationality as the father of
Joyal Umali Uy;
d.
and that petitioner Zoleta, in his capacity
as Acting Local Civil Registrar of Lucena, registered the said birth
certificate despite the aforementioned error in the said entry.
3.
private respondent filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss alleging that "what is prohibited under the law and
jurisprudence on the subject matter is the correction of the record in the
Civil Registry by a summary proceeding. In the absence of a showing that
prejudice would be caused to any party interested, a correction or amendment on
a birth certificate under peculiar circumstances may be made.
4.
After private respondent had adduced his
evidence, respondent court denied the the Motion to Dismiss and ordered the
Local Civil Registrar of Lucena City to correct the entry or the birth
certificate of Joyal Umali Uy, pertaining to the nationality of the plaintiff
Juanito K. Uy, from "Chinese" to "Filipino".
Issue: WON correcting the entry or the birth certificate of Joyal Umali
Uy, pertaining to the nationality of the plaintiff Juanito K. Uy, from
"Chinese" to "Filipino" is proper. Held: No.
Ruling:
- the doctrine that correction of entries in the Civil Registry records
cannot be had in proceedings held under Article 412 of the New Civil Code. Article
412 of the new Civil Code contemplates "mere corrections of mistakes that
are clerical in nature and not those which may affect the civil status or the
nationality or citizenship of the persons involved. If the purpose of the petition is merely to correct a clerical error,
then the court may issue an order in order that the error or mistake may be
corrected. If it refers to a substantial change, which affects the status or
citizenship of a party, the matter should be threshed out in a proper action depending
upon the nature of the issue involved.
- Rule 108, like all the other provisions of the Rules of Court, was
promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making authority under
Sec. 13 of Art. VIII of the Constitution, which directs that such rules of
court "shall not diminish or increase or modify substantive rights." If Rule 108 were to be extended
beyond innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors which are visible
to the eye or obvious to the understanding, so as to comprehend substantial and
controversial alterations concerning citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or
filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, said Rule 108 would thereby become
unconstitutional for it would be increasing or modifying substantive rights,
which changes are not authorized under Article 412 of the New Civil Code.
- While ostensibly, the action seeks a mere correction of an entry in the
Civil Registry, in effect, it requests the judicial declaration of Philippine
citizenship.
- Following the long established doctrine on the matter, it is crystal
clear that respondent should not have assumed jurisdiction of the case as the
subject matter thereof is not for the correction of clerical errors of a
harmless and innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or citizenship,
which is undisputably substantial as well as controverted, and as such, can
only be established in an appropriate adversary proceeding.
