GR L 21806; (August, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21806; August 17, 1967
IN RE: PETITION FOR THE CORRECTION AND/OR MARGINAL ANNOTATION OF ENTRIES IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF OSCAR SIA OLIVA. DOMINGO DY OLIVA AND VICENTA SIA OLIVA, petitioners-appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
The spouses Domingo Dy Oliva and Vicenta Sia Oliva, both claiming to be Filipino citizens, filed a petition on January 22, 1963, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasay City). They sought an order for the correction and/or marginal annotation of entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of their child, Oscar Sia Oliva, born on October 28, 1958. They alleged that through mistake and inadvertence, their nationality was entered as “Chinese” instead of “Filipino” in the birth certificate. The petitioners presented evidence in the lower court to support their claim of Philippine citizenship, including their marriage contract showing Filipino nationality, a Justice Secretary opinion, and an Immigration order. The lower court granted the petition and ordered the Local Civil Registrar to correct the entry. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, appealed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court had jurisdiction, in a summary proceeding under Article 412 of the Civil Code, to order the correction of the entries regarding the nationality of the parents from “Chinese” to “Filipino” in the birth certificate of Oscar Sia Oliva.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the jurisdiction of a court in a summary proceeding for correction of entries in the civil registry under Article 412 of the Civil Code is limited to the correction of innocuous or clerical errors only. A change involving the nationality or citizenship of parents is not a harmless or innocuous clerical error; it is a grave and important matter that affects the citizenship of the child. Such a substantial alteration requires a proper suit under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, where all parties concerned are notified and evidence can be fully presented and contested. The Court cited the settled rule established in Ansaldo vs. Republic and reiterated in subsequent cases. The petition was dismissed without prejudice to the institution of new proceedings in conformity with Rule 108.