G.R. No. L-29060 December 10, 1976
IN RE: PETITION FOR THE CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE BIRTH RECORD OF ROSARIO BARRETTO, KNOWN ACTUALLY AS DOMINGO BARRETTO. DOMINGO BARRETTO, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, respondent, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

The record of birth from the Manila civil register indicates that a female child named Rosario Barretto was born on June 29, 1944. In 1967, Domingo Barretto, needing a birth certificate for a marriage license, discovered this entry. He claimed to be the same person, asserting a clerical error was made regarding his sex and name. His baptismal record lists him as Domingo Sy Barretto, and he has been known by that name throughout his life. Domingo filed a petition to correct the sex entry from “female” to “male.” The trial court granted the petition, characterizing the error as merely clerical, partly reasoning that “Rosario” can be a name for both sexes.
The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed, contending the change was substantial, not clerical. It argued that altering the sex in the record would affect identity and raised concerns that the petition might be a scheme to bolster Domingo’s claim of being a native-born Chinese resident, as his birth record under the name Domingo Barretto does not exist. Domingo countered that the correction was personal and his evidence sufficiently established his identity as the person erroneously registered.

ISSUE

Whether the erroneous entry of “female” in the birth record of Rosario Barretto, claimed by Domingo Barretto to refer to himself, constitutes a clerical error correctible through a summary petition under Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding the petition was not warranted as the alleged error was not clerical. The legal logic is anchored on the settled doctrine that the summary correction procedure is strictly confined to innocuous, clerical errors visible on the face of the record or obvious to the understanding, such as misspellings, which can be rectified by reference to the record itself. A clerical error is one made in transcription, apparent from the record alone.
The Court found the situation here more complex. It was not a case where the name “Domingo” was recorded with an incorrect sex, which might suggest a simple mistake. Instead, a person named Domingo Barretto was claiming to be the person registered under a different name, Rosario Barretto, and seeking to alter a fundamental entry like sex. This required a factual determination of whether Rosario and Domingo were the same person and an inquiry into why the discrepancy occurred. These are substantial and controversial matters not resolvable by merely examining the existing record. Petitioner’s evidence, while presented, was not deemed indubitable. Consequently, the correction sought involved a substantial alteration to civil status records, which falls outside the scope of a summary proceeding and requires an adversarial action. The order directing the correction was set aside.