G.R. No. L-10598; February 14, 1958
JOAQUIN P. ROCES, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR, respondent-appellee. RICARDO JOAQUIN V. ROCES, represented by the natural guardian and mother Carmen O. Valdellon, intervenor-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Joaquin P. Roces, married to Pacita Carvajal, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Manila under Article 412 of the Civil Code. He sought to rectify the birth certificate of Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces, registered with the Local Civil Registrar of Manila. The certificate, executed without his knowledge or consent, identified him as the father of the child, an illegitimate child born to Carmen O. Valdellon. The certificate was signed by a hospital physician and contained a sworn statement by the mother, but was not signed by the petitioner. The petitioner prayed for the court to order the Local Civil Registrar to strike out all information referring to him as the father and to remove the surname “Roces” from the child’s name. The Local Civil Registrar submitted to the court’s discretion. The child, through his mother as intervenor, opposed the petition, arguing it involved controversial matters and that another action on the same question was pending. The lower court dismissed the petition, citing the case of Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic, which held that corrections under Article 412 are limited to clerical errors and cannot cover controversial issues affecting civil status.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for the correction of the birth certificate, seeking to remove the name of the alleged father and the child’s surname, involves a controversial matter that falls outside the scope of the summary procedure under Article 412 of the Civil Code for the correction of clerical errors.

RULING

No. The petition is granted. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order. The Court distinguished the present case from Ty Kong Tin. Here, the legal status of the child as illegitimate is not in dispute. The sole issue is the validity of the statements in the birth certificate identifying the father, which were made in violation of specific legal provisions. Section 5 of Act No. 3753 (the Civil Register Law) and Article 280 of the Civil Code explicitly prohibit, in the case of an illegitimate child, the revelation of the father’s name or any identifying information in the birth certificate unless jointly signed and sworn to by both parents, or by the mother only if the father refuses. Since the birth certificate on its face shows it was not signed by the alleged father, Joaquin P. Roces, the inclusion of his name and information identifying him as the father was unlawful. Consequently, the Local Civil Registrar had no authority to record such information. The entry, insofar as it identifies the father, is null and void and must be corrected. The procedure under Article 412 is appropriate as the correction required is not controversial but is mandated by the patent illegality appearing on the face of the record. The relief prayed for by the appellant is granted.