G.R. No. 222095 , August 7, 2017
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATES OF LIVE BIRTH OF YUHARES JAN BARCELOTE TINITIGAN AND AVEE KYNNA NOELLE BARCELOTE TINITIGAN; JONNA KARLA BAGUIO BARCELOTE, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RICKY O. TINITIGAN, and LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR, DAVAO CITY, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jonna Karla Baguio Barcelote had two illegitimate children with Ricky O. Tinitigan, a married man. She gave birth to Yohan Grace Barcelote on June 24, 2008, and to Joshua Miguel Barcelote on August 24, 2011, in Santa Cruz, Davao del Sur. To avoid humiliation and possible criminal charges, she did not immediately register their births. When school admission required a birth certificate, she successfully registered both births via late registration in Santa Cruz in 2012.
However, the National Statistics Office informed her of two pre-existing certificates of live birth registered in Davao City by Tinitigan without her knowledge. These certificates bore different names (Yuhares Jan Barcelote Tinitigan and Avee Kyna Noelle Barcelote Tinitigan), different birth dates, and listed a clinic in Davao City as the place of birth. Barcelote filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the cancellation of these certificates, arguing they contained erroneous entries and were registered unilaterally by Tinitigan.

ISSUE

Whether the certificates of live birth registered by the biological father, Ricky Tinitigan, should be cancelled on the grounds of erroneous entries and lack of the mother’s consent or knowledge.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, thereby upholding the validity of the birth certificates registered by Tinitigan. The legal logic rests on the validity of the registration under Act No. 3753 (The Civil Register Law) and the application of Republic Act No. 9255 .
First, the registration of the births by Tinitigan was procedurally valid. Act No. 3753 does not require the mother’s consent for a father to register the birth of his child. The law permits registration by the father, physician, midwife, or other specified persons. Here, the certificates were certified by a registered midwife, Erlinda Padilla, making the registration compliant with the law. The lack of Barcelote’s knowledge or signature does not render the registration void.
Second, the use of the father’s surname on the certificates is legally permissible. While Article 176 of the Family Code originally mandated that illegitimate children use the mother’s surname, it was amended by R.A. No. 9255 . This law allows an illegitimate child to use the surname of the father if the father recognizes the child. Recognition can be express, as evidenced by the record of birth appearing in the civil register. By personally registering the births and affixing his surname, Tinitigan expressly recognized the children. Therefore, the entries concerning the children’s surnames are not erroneous or void.
Finally, Barcelote failed to substantiate her claim that her late-registered entries were the true and accurate ones. She presented no evidence, aside from her own testimony, to prove the falsity of the particulars in the certificates registered by Tinitigan, such as the exact dates and place of birth. The burden of proof lies with the party seeking cancellation, and this burden was not discharged. Consequently, the certificates of live birth registered by Tinitigan remain valid records of the children’s births and recognition.