GR 200102; (September, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 200102, September 18, 2019
The Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Arthur Tan Manda, Respondent.
FACTS
Arthur Tan Manda (respondent) filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in his Birth Certificate before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City. He sought to correct the citizenship of his parents, Siok Ting Tan Manda and Chin Go Chua Tan, from “Chinese” to “Filipino” in his birth record, alleging these entries were erroneous. He claimed his father was a Filipino citizen by birth and his mother a Filipino citizen by marriage. In support, he presented Identification Certificates issued by the then Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) to his parents stating they are Filipino citizens. The RTC granted the petition. The Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC ruling. The petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari. During the pendency of the case, respondent passed away and was substituted by his wife, Arlinda D. Manda.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petition for correction of entry should be denied for failure to implead indispensable parties.
2. Whether respondent sufficiently proved that his parents are Filipino citizens.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the CA Decision, and NULLIFIED the RTC Decision.
1. On the failure to implead indispensable parties: The petition must be denied. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court requires that when cancellation or correction of an entry is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest affected must be made parties. Respondent only impleaded the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City. The changes sought—correction of his parents’ citizenship from Chinese to Filipino—are substantial and would affect the interests of his parents and siblings. Therefore, they are indispensable parties who should have been impleaded and notified. The publication of the notice of hearing does not cure this fatal defect, as the Rules mandate two sets of notices: to persons named in the petition and to other interested parties not named. Strict compliance with Rule 108 is required for substantial corrections like citizenship.
2. On the sufficiency of proof: Respondent failed to sufficiently prove his parents’ Filipino citizenship. The mere presentation of Identification Certificates from the then CID is inadequate. The exercise of rights or recognition by a government agency is not conclusive proof of citizenship, as a person may misrepresent himself. Chinese citizenship cannot be converted to Filipino solely based on such certificates.