G.R. No. L-26982, May 8, 1969.
Rosalinda Matias, petitioner-appellee, vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosalinda Matias filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, alleging she was born on February 28, 1941, in Malabon, Rizal. She discovered that the space for the child’s name in her birth certificate was left blank when she needed a copy for her designation as an exchange student. The other particulars in the certificate (date, time, place of birth, parents’ names and domicile) corresponded with her own. She prayed for the court to direct the insertion of her name in the blank space. The court ordered the petition to be published by posting copies in the provincial capitol of Pasig and the municipal building of Malabon for at least two weeks, and served upon the Solicitor General and the Civil Registrar of Malabon. The State, through the Solicitor General and the Civil Registrar, opposed the petition on the ground that a petition for correction under Article 412 of the Civil Code could only refer to clerical errors, and the amendment sought was not of that kind. At the hearing, petitioner presented the testimony of the nurse-midwife who attended her birth, who attested to petitioner’s identity with the child in the certificate and affirmed the lack of a name was due to an oversight. Petitioner’s father corroborated this. Her baptismal certificate, showing her name as Rosalinda Matias and coinciding with the birth certificate’s details, was also admitted in evidence. The trial court granted the petition on August 14, 1961. The State appealed, not questioning the probative value of the evidence but insisting the correction was not allowable under law and jurisprudence.

ISSUE

Whether the court can order the insertion of a name in a birth certificate where the space for the child’s name was originally left blank, through proceedings under Article 412 of the Civil Code, notwithstanding the doctrine in Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic which generally forbids material corrections via summary action.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court found that from the official birth certificate itself, it appears the name of a newborn need not appear at the time of registration but may be supplied later, as indicated by an instruction on the certificate stating, “If the child is not yet named make a supplemental report as directed.” Therefore, if the name can be recorded subsequently via a supplemental report, it may also be done upon a judicial order after proper hearing. While the supplying of a name left blank may not constitute a mere clerical error rectification, the doctrine in Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic, which forbade material corrections or amendments via a summary action against the Civil Registrar, was not controlling in this case. The proceedings here were not summary, given the publication of the petition and direct service on the Solicitor General to give notice to interested persons. Considering the peculiar circumstances—no doubt on the truth of petitioner’s allegations or evidence, no showing of prejudice to any interested party (as petitioner’s father testified in her favor), and the publicity given to the petition—the Court upheld the lower court’s order. The decision under appeal was affirmed. No costs.