GR 55380; (September, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 55380 September 26, 1994
IN RE: PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRY IN THE REGISTER OF DEATHS OF THE CIVIL REGISTRY OF DAVAO CITY, FROM THE NAME “FLAVIANO CASTRO ZAPANTA” TO “FLORENCIO B. ZAPANTA,” GLICERIA S. ZAPANTA, petitioners, vs. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF THE CITY OF DAVAO AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gliceria S. Zapanta, widow of the late Florencio B. Zapanta, filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in the Register of Deaths of the Civil Registry of Davao City before the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Davao. She sought to correct the name of her deceased husband in his death certificate from “Flaviano Castro Zapanta” to “Florencio B. Zapanta.” The petition alleged that Florencio B. Zapanta died on August 11, 1965, and was buried on August 12, 1965. When petitioner requested a certified copy of the death certificate, she discovered the erroneous entry of the name, although all other details (date of death, circumstances) correctly referred to her husband. The Assistant City Fiscal filed a motion to dismiss, contending the correction sought was substantial, not merely clerical, and thus not allowable under the summary proceeding. The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling that the correction was substantial in nature and beyond its power to grant in such a proceeding.
ISSUE
Whether a petition for correction of an entry in the civil registry, which seeks to change a name (from “Flaviano Castro Zapanta” to “Florencio B. Zapanta”) on a death certificate, can be granted despite the error being characterized as substantial rather than clerical, provided the proceeding is conducted as an appropriate adversary proceeding.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order of dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of the special proceedings. The Court clarified that while earlier jurisprudence (following Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic) limited corrections under Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court to innocuous or clerical errors, subsequent rulings have established that even substantial errors may be corrected through an “appropriate adversary proceeding.” The Court cited Republic vs. Valencia, which held that if the procedural requirements of Rule 108 are followed—including notice, publication, and the opportunity for the civil registrar and all interested parties to oppose—the proceeding ceases to be merely summary and becomes an appropriate adversary proceeding where substantial corrections can be threshed out. The records showed that the publication requirement had been complied with in this case. Therefore, the trial court should treat the petition as an adversary proceeding, allow all parties their day in court, and proceed to hear the merits of the petition for correction.