GR 120587; (January, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120587 ; January 20, 2004
MILAGROS M. BARCO, as the Natural Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem of MARY JOY ANN GUSTILO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL SIXTEENTH DIVISION), REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (BR. 133-MAKATI), NCJR; THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MAKATI; and NADINA G. MARAVILLA, respondents.
FACTS
Nadina Maravilla, married to Francisco Maravilla but separated, gave birth to June Salvacion in 1978. The birth certificate listed Francisco as the father. Nadina later claimed the biological father was Armando Gustilo, a married man. In 1983, Nadina filed a Petition for Correction of Entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, seeking to change June’s surname and paternity from Francisco Maravilla to Armando Gustilo. Both Francisco and Armando signified their conformity. The RTC granted the petition in 1985.
Subsequently, after Armando Gustilo’s death, estate proceedings were initiated. Jose Vicente Gustilo, another alleged child of Armando, petitioned the Court of Appeals to annul the 1985 RTC Order. Milagros Barco, as guardian of Mary Joy Ann Gustilo (another claimed child of Armando), intervened, asserting Mary Joy’s interest in the annulment as it affected the determination of legitimate heirs.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to order the correction of entries in June’s birth certificate to change her paternity and surname via a Rule 108 petition.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC acted without jurisdiction. A petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 is a special proceeding limited to correcting clerical or innocuous errors in civil registry entries. It cannot be used to effect substantial alterations concerning a person’s filiation, legitimacy, or paternity, as these are adversarial matters that directly affect status and rights. The changes sought—changing the father’s name and the child’s surname—were substantial and controversial, as they aimed to negate the presumption of June’s legitimacy as the child of Nadina’s marriage to Francisco. Such a change impinges on the civil status of an individual, which can only be threshed out in an appropriate adversary action, such as a petition for voluntary recognition or a direct action to impugn legitimacy. Since the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, its 1985 Order was void. The Court of Appeals’ decision annulling the RTC Order was affirmed.