GR 180802; (August, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180802. August 1, 2022
IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION AND CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE RECORDS OF BIRTH, RITA K. LEE, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. EMMA LEE AND THE CIVIL REGISTRAR FOR THE CITY OF CALOOCAN, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioners, the children of spouses Lee Tek Sheng and Keh Shiok Cheng, filed a Petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan. They sought to correct the birth record of respondent Emma Lee by deleting Shiok Cheng’s name as Emma’s mother and substituting it with the name Tiu Chuan. Petitioners alleged that Emma was not the child of Shiok Cheng but was instead the daughter of Tiu Chuan, their father’s alleged mistress, and that their father had falsified the birth records to list Shiok Cheng as the mother. During the proceedings, petitioners filed a Motion to Conduct a DNA Test to establish the alleged maternal relationship between Emma and Tiu Chuan. The trial court denied this motion, and its order was sustained by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 is the proper remedy to cancel and change the mother’s name in a birth certificate when the ultimate objective is to impugn the filiation and legitimacy of the child.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the rulings of the lower courts. The Court held that a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 cannot be used to collaterally attack the filiation and legitimacy of a child. The remedy under Rule 108 is limited to the correction of clerical or typographical errors and changes that are self-evident, factual, and uncontroverted. It is not a substitute for an action to impugn legitimacy or establish filiation, which are substantial and adversarial matters requiring a direct action specifically prescribed by law, such as an action for quieting of status.
The Court emphasized that the petitioners’ true objective was not a mere clerical correction but a substantive alteration aimed at disestablishing Emma’s filiation to Shiok Cheng. Allowing the petition would permit a collateral attack on Emma’s legitimacy, which is prohibited. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the DNA testing sought by petitioners could not be allowed in this proceeding. A petition for correction is not the proper vehicle to gather evidence to contest filiation. DNA testing, while a viable scientific method, may only be ordered when the party seeking it first presents prima facie evidence or establishes a reasonable possibility of the alleged filiation. Petitioners failed to meet this threshold. The proper course for petitioners, if they wished to contest Emma’s status, was to file a direct action impugning her filiation, not a special proceeding for correction of entries.