G.R. No. 181174 ; December 4, 2009
MA. CRISTINA TORRES BRAZA, PAOLO JOSEF T. BRAZA and JANELLE ANN T. BRAZA, Petitioners, vs. THE CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR OF HIMAMAYLAN CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, minor PATRICK ALVIN TITULAR BRAZA, represented by LEON TITULAR, CECILIA TITULAR and LUCILLE C. TITULAR, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Cristina Torres Braza was validly married to Pablo Sicad Braza, Jr. on January 4, 1978. Pablo died in 2002. Following his death, respondent Lucille Titular presented minor Patrick Alvin Titular Braza as her son with Pablo. Ma. Cristina obtained Patrick’s birth certificate, which indicated Pablo as the father and contained an annotation stating Patrick was “Legitimated by virtue of subsequent marriage of parents on April 22, 1998.” Ma. Cristina also secured a marriage contract showing Pablo and Lucille were married on that date in 1998.
Petitioners, Ma. Cristina and her children, filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court to correct the entries in Patrick’s birth record. They contended the marriage between Pablo and Lucille was bigamous, as Ma. Cristina’s marriage to Pablo was still subsisting, and thus Patrick could not have been legitimated. The petition sought correction of the entries, a directive for Patrick to undergo DNA testing, a declaration of nullity of the legitimation, and a declaration that the marriage of Pablo and Lucille was bigamous.

ISSUE

Whether a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy to nullify a marriage, impugn legitimacy, and seek DNA testing.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the trial court’s dismissal. The Court held that a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108 is limited to correcting clerical, spelling, typographical, or other innocuous errors in the civil registry. It is not an adversarial proceeding designed to resolve substantial and contentious issues such as the validity of a marriage or questions of legitimacy and filiation.
The alterations petitioners sought were not mere clerical corrections but required a declaration that the marriage between Pablo and Lucille was void for bigamy and an impugnment of Patrick’s legitimacy. Such causes of action are governed by specific laws and rules, including the Family Code and A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages), and must be filed in a direct action before the Family Court. These matters cannot be collaterally attacked through a Rule 108 petition. The cases cited by petitioners (Cariño, Lee, and Kho) were distinguished, as they involved different factual circumstances where the resolution of marital status or filiation was essential to the core relief sought in an appropriate adversarial proceeding. Here, the primary objective was to nullify a marriage and challenge filiation, which falls outside the scope of Rule 108.