G.R. No. L-10055; September 30, 1958
PAZ SCHULTZ, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Paz Schultz, married, filed a petition in the Manila Court of First Instance for the correction of entries in her birth certificate registered in the Local Civil Registrar. She alleged she was born on May 15, 1910, the legitimate child of John R. Schultz, an American citizen. Her registered birth certificate contained the following data she claimed were erroneous: (1) Name of Child: “Maria R. Schuttz”; (2) Nationality: “Filipino”; and (3) Name of father: “John R. Schuttz”. She sought an order to correct these to: (1) “Paz Schultz”; (2) “American”; and (3) “John R. Schultz”. The Civil Registrar of Manila interposed no objection provided a judicial order under Article 412 of the Civil Code was obtained. The Solicitor General opposed the petition. After hearing, the trial court ordered the correction of the surname from “Schuttz” to “Schultz” but declined to order the change of “Maria” to “Paz” and “Filipino” to “American”. Petitioner appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the petition under Article 412 of the New Civil Code is the proper remedy to correct the entries regarding (1) the petitioner’s first name from “Maria” to “Paz” and (2) her nationality from “Filipino” to “American”.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the appealed judgment, denying the corrections of the first name and nationality.
1. On the Correction of Nationality from “Filipino” to “American”: The Court held that a petition under Article 412 of the New Civil Code is not the proper proceeding to correct entries affecting nationality or citizenship. Citing Re Ty Kong Tin and Ansaldo vs. Republic of the Philippines, the Court ruled that such proceedings are limited to correcting harmless and innocuous clerical errors (e.g., a misspelled name, occupation of parents). Changes involving civil status, nationality, or citizenship are grave matters that affect not only the individual but also their offspring. These require a proper adversarial suit where the State and all concerned parties are made respondents, and full evidence is submitted. The Court found no distinction between this case (seeking a change from Filipino to alien) and Ty Kong Tin (seeking a change from alien to Filipino), as both involve the correction of an entry concerning citizenship.
2. On the Correction of First Name from “Maria” to “Paz”: The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the evidence did not establish a mere clerical error. The midwife who reported the birth gave the name “Maria” based on information from the mother, and the father’s testimony that the midwife “could have made a mistake” was speculative. The fact that the petitioner was baptized “Paz” twenty days after birth indicated that the parents may have changed their minds about the name subsequent to registration. This situation is identical to Chomi vs. Local Civil Registrar, where the Court held that using a baptismal name different from the registered name does not constitute a mistake in the civil register entry justifying correction under Article 412. Any error was on the part of the parents in giving a name different from the one registered.
Therefore, the petition under Article 412 was improper for seeking substantial changes to nationality and a name that was not erroneously recorded but subsequently changed by the parents. The correction of the misspelled surname (“Schuttz” to “Schultz”) was the only proper clerical correction allowed.