GR 111455; (December, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111455 December 23, 1998
MARISSA A. MOSSESGELD, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Marissa A. Mossesgeld, single, gave birth to a child on December 2, 1989. The presumed father, Eleazar S. Calasan, a married lawyer, signed the birth certificate as informant, affixed his surname “Calasan” to the child, and executed an affidavit admitting paternity. The local civil registrar of Mandaluyong refused to register the certificate with the father’s surname, citing Circular No. 4 (dated October 11, 1988) of the Civil Registrar General, which implemented Article 176 of the Family Code mandating that illegitimate children use their mother’s surname.
Eleazar S. Calasan initially filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court to compel registration. During proceedings, he was substituted by the child’s mother, Marissa A. Mossesgeld, as petitioner. The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling that illegitimate children must use the mother’s surname. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel the local civil registrar to register the certificate of live birth of an illegitimate child using the alleged father’s surname, where the father has admitted paternity.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic is anchored on the clear mandate of Article 176 of the Family Code, which states: “Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code.” This provision is absolute and applies regardless of any acknowledgment or admission of paternity by the father. The Family Code, effective August 3, 1988, simplified the classification of children to only legitimate and illegitimate, thereby repealing the old Civil Code provisions that allowed acknowledged natural children to use their father’s surname.
Consequently, the local civil registrar correctly refused registration, as the act sought to be compelled is expressly prohibited by law. A writ of mandamus cannot be granted to enforce an act that contravenes statutory law. The Court noted that the putative father’s recourse, should he wish the child to bear his surname, is through legal adoption, whereby the child would be considered legitimate and entitled to use the adopter’s surname.