G.R. No. 215370 , November 9, 2021
RICHELLE BUSQUE ORDOÑA, PETITIONER, VS. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PASIG CITY AND ALLAN D. FULGUERAS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Richelle Busque Ordoña has been married to Ariel Libut since 2000. After their wedding, she worked abroad in Qatar. Upon learning her husband was having an affair, she returned to the Philippines, and they later separated in fact but not in law. In 2008, she went to work in Abu Dhabi, where she met Allan Fulgueras, with whom she became intimately involved. She became pregnant, returned to the Philippines, and gave birth to Alrich Paul Fulgueras in 2010. The child’s birth certificate, for which petitioner was the informant, lists his last name as “Fulgueras,” names Allan Fulgueras as the father, and is supported by an Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity from Allan Fulgueras. The spaces for the place and date of the parents’ marriage were left blank, thereby characterizing the child’s filiation as non-marital or illegitimate from the beginning. Petitioner filed a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court seeking to: (1) correct the child’s last name from “Fulgueras” to her maiden name “Ordoña”; (2) delete the paternal information entries (Items 13-17) from the birth certificate; and (3) cancel the Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity, which she claims was falsely executed. Her evidence aimed to show the alleged biological father was not in the Philippines at the time of birth and did not actually acknowledge paternity. The ponencia, however, held that the birth certificate cannot conclusively determine the child’s filiation because, as he was conceived and born while his mother was married, he is presumed legitimate.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for correction, deletion, and cancellation of entries in the child’s birth certificate under Rule 108 should be granted, given the child’s status as ostensibly illegitimate per the birth certificate but presumed legitimate under the Family Code due to the mother’s existing marriage.

RULING

The Dissenting Opinion of Justice Lazaro-Javier argues for granting the petition. The dissent contends that the ponencia’s outcome is unfair and inhumane to the petitioner, a solo mother, and her child, creating a lack of clarity regarding the child’s status. The dissent maintains that the child’s birth certificate is a tangible fact and the first and best evidence of his illegitimate filiation, as publicly indicated by the blank spaces for the parents’ marriage details. The ponencia, by applying the presumption of legitimacy under Articles 164 and 167 of the Family Code, acts as an invisible watermark on this document, creating two conflicting records of the child’s status (illegitimate per the birth certificate, but presumed legitimate per the ponencia), which will force the child and mother to constantly explain his status. The dissent argues that the Court is not powerless to correct this legal fiction and that the current jurisprudence on Article 170 of the Family Code is gender-insensitive and patriarchal. It proposes that Article 170 should not be interpreted as granting an exclusive right only to the husband or his heirs to impugn legitimacy, as its text does not explicitly state such exclusivity, and a sensible construction avoiding absurd consequences should be adopted. The dissent emphasizes the child’s best interests and the need for substantive gender equality, criticizing the institutional contradiction in the Court’s advocacy for gender responsiveness while upholding patriarchal legal interpretations. It concludes that the petition should be granted to allow the corrections, thereby providing clarity and justice.