G.R. No. 215370, November 9, 2021
RICHELLE BUSQUE ORDOÑA, PETITIONER, VS. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PASIG CITY AND ALLAN D. FULGUERAS, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Richelle Busque Ordoña filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to annul the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA had affirmed the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City’s dismissal of her petition filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for the correction of entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of her son, Alrich Paul. In her Rule 108 petition, she only named as respondents the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City and Allan D. Fulgueras, the alleged father. The petition sought to correct entries concerning the child’s filiation.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 was properly filed and should be granted, considering the procedural requirements, specifically the necessity of impleading all interested parties.
RULING
The Separate Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Gesmundo concurs with the ponencia’s denial of the petition due to petitioner’s failure to comply with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The opinion emphasizes that Rule 108 sets forth specific procedural requirements for the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. Section 3 requires that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected must be made parties to the proceeding. Furthermore, Section 4 requires the court to cause reasonable notice to be given to the persons named in the petition and to publish the order once a week for three consecutive weeks. The petition is an in rem action, and strict compliance with these requirements is essential for the court to acquire jurisdiction. In this case, the petitioner failed to implead all necessary and indispensable interested parties, specifically the child, Alrich Paul, whose filiation and status were directly affected by the petition. This failure to comply with the procedural rules under Rule 108 is fatal to the petition. The opinion clarifies that while Rule 108 initially covered only corrections of clerical errors, jurisprudence (Republic v. Valencia) established that it may be used for substantial corrections provided an adversarial proceeding is conducted. However, such a proceeding necessitates the inclusion of all interested parties. Procedural rules must be obeyed to ensure fair results, and their non-observance cannot be rationalized by a policy of liberal construction. Therefore, the petition must be denied.