G.R. No. L-61565 August 20, 1990
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. SOFRONIO SAYO, Presiding Judge of the CFI of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch I, and RAMON TAN BIANA JR., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Ramon Tan Biana Jr. filed a petition for correction of entries in his birth certificate before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya. He sought to change the citizenship entries for himself and his parents from “Chinese” to “Filipino,” claiming the original entries were erroneous. The requisite notices were published in a newspaper of general circulation and posted, and copies of the petition and hearing notice were served upon the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the Provincial Fiscal, and the Local Civil Registrar. At the initial hearing, the OSG did not appear, but the Assistant Provincial Fiscal represented the government. The trial court, noting the significance of the petition involving citizenship, reset the hearing and explicitly requested the OSG to file an opposition. The OSG still filed no pleading.
The trial court proceeded to receive private respondent’s evidence, which included Bureau of Immigration decisions declaring his father a Philippine citizen entitled to re-admission and recognizing his mother as a Philippine citizen by virtue of marriage, along with voter identification cards and a sibling’s birth certificate. Based on this evidence, the trial court granted the petition and ordered the corrections. The OSG filed a belated motion for reconsideration, arguing the changes were substantial and not proper in a summary proceeding, which the trial court denied.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries concerning citizenship in a proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, considering the changes are allegedly substantial in nature.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The legal logic centers on the nature of proceedings under Rule 108 for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. The Court clarified that while the proceeding is summary in nature, it does not preclude the correction of substantial errors, such as those involving citizenship, provided it is conducted as an appropriate adversary proceeding. The essence is not the label of the proceeding but the observance of due process through proper publication, notice, and opportunity to be heard.
In this case, the requirements for an adversary proceeding were satisfied. Notices were duly published and served upon all relevant government offices, including the OSG. The OSG’s failure to appear or oppose the petition despite notice and a specific court order did not convert the proceeding into an ex parte one; it remained adversarial in character. The government was represented by the Provincial Fiscal during the hearing. Moreover, the OSG, in its subsequent motions, did not contest the authenticity or sufficiency of the documentary evidence presented, which conclusively established the Filipino citizenship of private respondent’s parents and, consequently, of private respondent himself. The Court thus held that the trial court correctly acted within its authority under Rule 108 to order the correction based on the evidence presented in a proceeding that complied with adversarial due process.