G.R. No. L-19659; May 31, 1965
DR. POLICARPIO C. ALISOSO, petitioner-appellee, vs. TARCELA LASTIMOSO, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Dr. Policarpio C. Alisoso, a physician, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Cebu seeking an order to strike out his name from the birth record of one Leonilo Lastimoso in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Pinamungajan, Cebu, to disassociate himself from the child’s paternity. The petition alleged that on January 28, 1960, a child named Leonilo Lastimoso was reported to the Local Civil Registrar by one Lucila O. Lastimoso as the child of the petitioner, and this was entered in the birth registry. Upon learning of this entry, petitioner contacted Tarcela Lastimoso, the child’s mother, who executed an affidavit stating she did not authorize anyone to register the child, nor did she personally register or cause the registration; Lucila O. Lastimoso was not the attending midwife or nurse and had no authority to report the false statement. Petitioner was never married to Tarcela Lastimoso, as he was already married to Irenea Hermosisima since March 25, 1951. The parish church record of Pinamungajan showed the child’s mother as Tarcela Lastimoso but the father as “no conocido” (unknown). The Solicitor General, representing respondents, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it did not state a cause of action, as the correction sought was not a mere clerical error under Article 412 of the Civil Code. The lower court granted the petition, ordering the Local Civil Registrar to strike out petitioner’s name as the father and state instead that the father is unknown. The government appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the court a quo erred in ordering the correction of the birth record by striking out petitioner’s name as the father of Leonilo Lastimoso, considering that the correction sought is not merely clerical but involves paternity and filiation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court. The Court held that, based on the undisputed peculiar facts of the case—where petitioner is not the father of the child, has no amorous relations with the mother, and the false entry was made by an unauthorized person (Lucila O. Lastimoso)—the situation is parallel to the case of Roces v. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila. In Roces, it was ruled that when a birth certificate contains statements identifying the alleged father without his signature, such statements violate the law, and the local civil registrar had no authority to incorporate them into the records; thus, the entry is null and void and should be corrected or cancelled. Similarly, here, the entry was false and made without authority, warranting its correction. The Court distinguished this from corrections under Article 412 of the Civil Code, which are limited to clerical errors, and emphasized that this case involves the cancellation of an unlawful entry. Therefore, the lower court correctly ordered the correction.