GR 35232; (January, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35232 January 31, 1973
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF OLONGAPO CITY, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE AUGUSTO M. AMORES, Judge, Court of First Instance of Zambales and MERLITA L. CO, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Merlita L. Co filed a verified petition with the Court of First Instance of Zambales seeking authority to correct several entries in her birth records. She sought to change her name from “Merlita Dee” to “Merlita Lee,” her father’s name from “Co Guan” to “Co Goan,” the civil status of her parents from “married” to a relationship without the benefit of marriage, and her own status from “legitimate” to “illegitimate.” She alleged these errors were committed by the attending midwife, Anita Arcela, who testified she mistakenly wrote the names as dictated and erroneously presumed the parents were married, thus marking the child as legitimate. No opposition was filed by the Civil Registrar or the Solicitor General, and the lower court granted the petition, ordering the corrections.
ISSUE
Whether the corrections sought, which involve changes to citizenship, legitimacy, and parental civil status, can be granted under the summary procedure for correction of entries in the civil register under Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the summary correction procedure under Article 412 of the Civil Code, implemented by Rule 108, is strictly limited to the correction of clerical, innocuous, or harmless errors, such as misspellings or obvious mistakes visible to the eyes. The changes sought by respondent are substantial and controversial, as they pertain to citizenship, legitimacy, filiation, and marital status. Such alterations affect substantive rights and require full-blown adversarial proceedings for proper adjudication, as they involve complex issues of paternity and family relations.
The Court reiterated its consistent jurisprudence, from Ty Kong Tin v. Republic to Uy v. Local Civil Registrar, that Rule 108 was designed solely to implement Article 412 and cannot be used to effect substantial changes. To allow otherwise would be an unconstitutional modification of substantive rights beyond the scope of the rule-making power. The correction of the surname from “Dee” to “Lee” is likewise substantial, as it involves a change of name properly cognizable only in a special proceeding under Rule 103. The lower court’s view that the errors were purely clerical was erroneous, as the nature of the changes is inherently controversial, not merely clerical.