GR L 14823; (December,1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14823, December 28, 1961
IN RE: CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY. ANACLETA BARILLO, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Petitioner Anacleta Barillo filed a verified petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal seeking the correction of entries in the civil registry. She alleged that she has always been known by the nickname “Etang” and that she was lawfully married to Ngan Hu in 1937, with whom she had four children. However, due to this common usage of her nickname, her name was erroneously recorded as “Vicenta” instead of “Anacleta” in her children’s birth certificates. She prayed for the correction of her first name from Vicenta to Anacleta in these birth records and in all other documents bearing the erroneous name.
The Solicitor General moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it stated no cause of action as the correction sought was not clerical and would also affect the identity of her husband, listed in the birth certificates as “Tomas Gan” and not “Ngan Hu.” The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling the correction was substantial and not within the scope of Article 412 of the Civil Code. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the correction of the name “Vicenta” to “Anacleta” in the birth certificates constitutes a mere clerical error correctible under the summary proceeding authorized by Article 412 of the Civil Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the correction sought is substantial and cannot be effected through the summary proceeding under Article 412. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between clerical and substantial errors. Article 412 permits only the correction of harmless and innocuous errors, such as clear misspellings, in a summary manner.
The Court reasoned that the requested change is not merely clerical. It would fundamentally affect the identity of the children’s parents as recorded in the civil register. The father’s name in the certificates is “Tomas Gan,” while the petitioner claims her husband is “Ngan Hu,” allegedly the same person. This discrepancy requires judicial adjudication to establish identity, which is beyond a summary proceeding’s scope. Furthermore, the petition’s prayer to correct “any and all other” records is overly broad and exceeds the court’s limited power under Article 412. Thus, such a substantial alteration must be sought in an appropriate adversarial proceeding, such as a petition for change of name or a similar remedy where all interested parties can be heard.