G.R. No. 250199 , February 13, 2023.
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Oliver M. Boquiren and Roselyn M. Boquiren, Duly Represented by Her Mother Rosalinda B. Macaraeg, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Oliver and Roselyn Boquiren were born out of wedlock in 1997 and 1999, respectively, to Oscar Boquiren and Rosalinda Macaraeg. Their births were registered in 2002. Their parents married on April 18, 2002. Based on Affidavits of Legitimation executed by the spouses, the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) annotated their certificates of live birth (COLBs) to reflect they were “LEGITIMATED BY SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE OF PARENTS.” In 2015, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) advised that the legitimation could not be effected because Oscar was previously married to another woman on January 29, 1987, and there was no showing this first marriage was dissolved. Consequently, respondents filed a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108, seeking to cancel the annotation of the Affidavits of Legitimation and to annotate instead Affidavits of Acknowledgment executed by Oscar, to allow them to use the surname “Boquiren” as illegitimate children. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, holding that the proceeding was adversarial and that the corrections involved substantial errors. The CA ruled that the RTC could rule on the validity of the parents’ marriage in the context of the petition to determine the propriety of canceling the legitimation annotation, and that respondents, as illegitimate children, were the proper parties to question the entries regarding their filiation.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the RTC’s grant of the petition for correction of entries in the certificates of live birth of respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The RTC had no jurisdiction in a Rule 108 proceeding to determine the legitimacy and filiation of children. Rule 108 is a special proceeding for the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. Jurisprudence establishes that while substantial errors can be corrected under Rule 108 through an adversarial proceeding, the court’s jurisdiction is limited to the correction of the entry itself. It cannot be used as a substitute for an action to establish filiation, legitimacy, or illegitimacy, or to declare the nullity of a marriage, as these matters require direct actions specifically provided by law. The annotations on respondents’ COLBs regarding legitimation were based on the subsequent marriage of their parents. A direct action is required to challenge the validity of that marriage or to impugn the children’s status as legitimated. The legitimacy of a child cannot be attacked collaterally; it can only be questioned in a direct action brought by the proper parties within the periods set by the Family Code. Here, respondents sought to change their status from “legitimated” to “illegitimate,” which is a collateral attack on their legitimacy not permitted in a Rule 108 proceeding. The appropriate remedy for respondents, if they wished to establish their illegitimate filiation and use their father’s surname, was to file a direct action for compulsory recognition under Article 175 of the Family Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 9255 . The Court reversed and set aside the decisions of the CA and the RTC and dismissed the petition for correction of entries.