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, represented by their mother Rosalinda, filed a Petition for Correction of Entries under Rule 108 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). They sought to cancel the annotation of an Affidavit of Legitimation on their certificates of live birth and to annotate instead an Affidavit of Acknowledgment executed by their father, Oscar Boquiren. The siblings were born to Rosalinda and Oscar in 1997 and 1999, respectively, before the couple married in 2002. Subsequently, they executed the Affidavit of Legitimation. However, in 2015, it was discovered that Oscar had a prior subsisting marriage from 1987, rendering his marriage to Rosalinda void. Consequently, the Philippine Statistics Authority advised that the legitimation was invalid due to the legal impediment under Article 177 of the Family Code, and an acknowledgment was the proper act.
The RTC granted the petition, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction in a Rule 108 proceeding to nullify marriages or rule on legitimation and filiation, especially when initiated by improper parties. The ponencia granted the Republic’s petition. This digest presents the dissenting opinion of Justice Singh.

ISSUE

Whether a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is the proper adversarial proceeding to effect the substantial correction of cancelling an invalid Affidavit of Legitimation and annotating an Affidavit of Acknowledgment in the civil registry.

RULING

The dissenting opinion argues that Rule 108 is the appropriate proceeding. The legal logic is anchored on established jurisprudence holding that Rule 108 is precisely designed for substantial and controversial corrections to civil registry entries, including those affecting legitimacy, filiation, or citizenship, provided its adversarial requirements are met. The dissent cites Republic v. Ontuca, Republic v. Lugsanay Uy, and Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo, which uniformly mandate Rule 108 for such substantial alterations.
The dissent distinguishes the cited case of Republic v. Ordoña, which prohibited a mother from impugning her child’s legitimacy. Here, the petitioners are the children themselves, now adults, seeking not to impugn their filiation but to rectify an invalid entry based on a legal impossibility—their father’s prior marriage precluded valid legitimation under Article 177 of the Family Code. Their goal is to annotate their father’s voluntary acknowledgment to reflect the true legal status and allow them to use his surname, a correction aimed at accuracy, not controversy over parentage. The procedural safeguards of Rule 108, including publication and involvement of the civil registrar and the OSG, were satisfied, making it the correct vehicle to achieve the purely clerical act of aligning the registry with an established legal fact (the void marriage and invalid legitimation). The dissent concludes that denying the petition undermines the purpose of Rule 108 to ensure correct public records.