G.R. No. L-25168. January 31, 1981.
IN THE MATTER FOR THE CORRECTION OF AN ENTRY IN THE CIVIL REGISTER OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF JOLO AFFECTING THE CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH OF MINOR BIO HEONG WING. KUMALA SALIM WING, petitioner-appellee, vs. AHMAD ABUBAKAR, Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Jolo; THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, MANILA, and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioner Kumala Salim Wing sought the correction of her daughter Bio Heong Wing’s birth certificate, which erroneously indicated the child’s sex as male (“M”) instead of female (“F”). The petition alleged that the error was a clerical mistake made by the attending nurse’s clerk during the preparation of the document, which went undiscovered by the illiterate parents. The child was subsequently registered with the Bureau of Immigration using the erroneous data. Upon discovery, the Immigration Office advised the parents to seek judicial correction.
The Civil Registrar and the Republic, through the Solicitor General, opposed the petition, contending that the correction of such an entry required an adversary proceeding, not a summary one. The lower court, however, conducted full-blown hearings over several dates, receiving testimonial and documentary evidence, including the testimony of the attending nurse, a family employee, a language expert, and a physician who confirmed the child’s female sex. The court then ordered the correction.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in ordering the correction of the sex entry in the birth certificate through a proceeding that was allegedly summary in nature.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The legal logic centers on the distinction between clerical errors and substantial alterations in civil registry entries, and the nature of the proceeding required for each. The Court clarified that the established doctrine, originating from Ty Kong Tin v. Republic, prohibits the correction of substantial errors affecting status or citizenship through a summary proceeding. However, the proceeding in this case was not summary. The lower court issued notices to all relevant government offices, including the Solicitor General, who filed an opposition. It then conducted multiple hearings, recorded extensive stenographic notes, and rendered a detailed decision based on exhaustive evidence. This constituted a proper adversary proceeding.
The correction sought was for a clerical error—a simple misnotation of sex—and not a substantial change to the child’s status or citizenship. The Court cited precedents like Matias v. Republic, where similar full-blown proceedings were deemed sufficient for such corrections. The overwhelming evidence, including medical certification and corroborative testimonies, conclusively proved the child was female. Therefore, the lower court correctly applied the law in ordering the Civil Registrar to correct the entry from “M” to “F.”