G.R. No. 233520. March 06, 2019
ROICE ANNE F. FOX, PETITIONER, V. THE PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY AND THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Roice Anne F. Fox, a Philippine resident, married a Canadian citizen and settled in Canada, where their daughter, Zion Pearl Fox, was born on June 27, 2015. The child’s Canadian birth certificate and passport correctly reflected this date. The Philippine Consulate Office (PCO) in Calgary, Canada, subsequently reported the birth to the national office of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in Manila. However, the PCO erroneously recorded the birth year as 2016 instead of 2015 in its Report of Birth. Upon discovering the error, the PCO advised Fox to file a judicial petition in the Philippines for correction of the entry.
Fox filed a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she was a resident, seeking to correct her daughter’s birth year in the PSA record. The RTC, however, dismissed the petition motu proprio for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that under Rule 108, a petition for correction of an entry in the civil register must be filed with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. Since the erroneous Report of Birth was registered directly with the PSA in Manila, the proper venue was the RTC of Manila, not Davao City.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC of Davao City correctly dismissed the petition for correction of entry on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s dismissal. The Court clarified that a petition for correction or cancellation of an entry under Rule 108 is a special proceeding, and strict compliance with its jurisdictional requirements is mandatory. Section 1 of Rule 108 explicitly provides that such a petition must be filed with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. The “corresponding civil registry” refers to the office where the contested entry is recorded. In this case, the erroneous Report of Birth was registered directly with the PSA in Manila, making the PSA’s central registry in Manila the relevant civil register. Consequently, the proper venue was the RTC of Manila, not Davao City. The Court cited Republic v. Kho (2013), which held that venue in special proceedings is jurisdictional.
Furthermore, the Court noted additional jurisdictional defects in Fox’s petition. Rule 108 requires the impleading of the civil registrar as an indispensable party. Failure to do so deprives the court of jurisdiction, as the civil registrar’s participation is essential for any valid determination. The petition also failed to implead all persons with a potential interest in the correction. These omissions rendered the petition fatally defective. Thus, the RTC of Davao City correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal, however, was without prejudice, allowing Fox to refile the petition in the proper court—the RTC of Manila—with full compliance to all requirements of Rule 108, including the joinder of the PSA as the civil registrar and publication of the notice.
