G.R. No. 189538 ; February 10, 2014
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Merlinda L. Olaybar, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Merlinda L. Olaybar discovered from a requested Certificate of No Marriage (CENOMAR) that she was recorded as having married a Korean national, Ye Son Sune, on June 24, 2002, in Cebu City. Olaybar denied contracting this marriage, asserting she neither knew the alleged husband nor appeared before the solemnizing officer, and that the signature on the marriage certificate was forged. She filed a Petition for Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage Contract under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, impleading the Local Civil Registrar and her alleged husband.
During trial, Olaybar testified she was working in Makati on the alleged wedding date. An MTCC employee confirmed a marriage was celebrated but stated the wife who appeared was not Olaybar. A document examiner concluded the signature was forged. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition, directing the cancellation of all entries in the wife portion of the marriage contract. The Republic, through the OSG, moved for reconsideration, arguing the action was a disguised petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, which Rule 108 cannot accommodate.

ISSUE

Whether a petition for cancellation of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy to cancel entries in a marriage contract under the circumstances of this case.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the RTC. The Court clarified that while Rule 108 is generally a proceeding for correcting clerical or typographical errors and cannot be used to nullify a marriage, the present case is an exception. The evidence overwhelmingly established that no marriage was ever contracted by Olaybar; the certificate was a product of forgery and identity theft. The proceeding was not to declare a marriage void but to correct the civil registry by cancelling the erroneous entries that falsely recorded a non-existent marital status.
The legal logic is that Rule 108 remains the appropriate adversarial proceeding for such a correction when the very existence of the factual event recorded—the marriage itself—is contested and proven false. The Court distinguished between annulling a voidable marriage and correcting a record of an event that never occurred. Since Olaybar proved she did not contract the marriage, the cancellation sought was merely to reflect the truth that there was no marriage to speak of, not to nullify one. The RTC therefore did not err in granting the petition under Rule 108.