G.R. No. 104678 July 20, 1992
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF CAUAYAN, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and DOMINADOR AGCAOILI, respondents.

FACTS

On May 12, 1988, private respondent Dominador Agcaoili filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Isabela to correct entries in his birth certificate, specifically to change his citizenship from Chinese to Filipino and his status from legitimate to illegitimate. The hearing was set for June 28, 1988. Notice was served upon the Solicitor General and ordered published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Isabela. The Solicitor General entered his appearance on June 28, 1988, authorized the Provincial Prosecutor to appear, and requested copies of court notices but filed no opposition. After hearing, the trial court ordered the corrections. The Republic appealed, arguing non-compliance with the jurisdictional publication requirement because the petitioner failed to submit copies of the newspapers where the notices were published, rendering the proceedings non-adversarial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition for correction of entries under Rule 108, considering the alleged non-compliance with the publication requirement and the nature of the proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The proceedings were adversarial and complied with jurisdictional requirements. The records showed proper notices were sent and published. The Republic, through the Provincial Prosecutor, actively participated in the trial, cross-examined witnesses, and did not object to the evidence, including the affidavit of the publisher and newspaper clippings proving publication. The Republic’s failure to raise the jurisdictional issue during trial and its active participation estopped it from doing so on appeal. The Court cited Republic v. Valencia, holding that substantial corrections can be made under Rule 108 through appropriate adversarial proceedings, which were satisfied here as all relevant facts were developed, opposing counsel had opportunity to challenge evidence, and the evidence was thoroughly considered. The Solicitor General did not question the genuineness or sufficiency of Agcaoili’s evidence regarding his citizenship and status. The rule that the state is not bound by agents’ errors cannot excuse the Republic’s acquiescence to jurisdiction and its counsel’s procedural omission.