Alisoso vs. Lastimoso, et al.

A false entry in the civil registry identifying a person as the father of a child may be cancelled or corrected, notwithstanding that the correction affects paternity and filiation, where the entry was made without the alleged father's knowledge or consent and by a person without authority to register the birth, and the facts are undisputed and parallel to Roces vs. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila.

Dr. Policarpio C. Alisoso is a physician, and Tarcela Lastimoso is the mother of Leonilo Lastimoso. The dispute concerned the birth record of Leonilo Lastimoso, whose paternity was attributed to Dr. Policarpio C. Alisoso. Article 412 of the New Civil Code governs the correction of entries in the civil registry, and prior rulings distinguish mere clerical corrections from substantial changes affecting civil status, nationality, or citizenship. The controversy implicated the rule in Roces vs. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila, which allowed cancellation or correction of a false paternity entry in a birth certificate.

On January 28, 1960, a child named Leonilo Lastimoso was reported to the Local Civil Registrar of Pinamungajan, Cebu, by Lucila O. Lastimoso as the child of Dr. Policarpio C. Alisoso, and was entered as such in the registry of birth of that office. Alisoso was a physician by profession. Tarcela Lastimoso was the child's mother.

After being informed of the false entry, Alisoso immediately contacted Tarcela Lastimoso to ascertain whether the entry had been made with her knowledge and consent. In an affidavit, Tarcela declared that she had not authorized anyone to register the child in the civil registrar's office, nor had she personally registered the child or caused the child to be registered there. Lucila O. Lastimoso was not the midwife or nurse who attended Tarcela's delivery, nor did she have any authority to report the false statement to the local civil registrar. Alisoso had never married Tarcela, contrary to what appeared in the entry; he was already married to Irenea Hermosisima, whom he married on March 25, 1951. The record of the parish church of Pinamungajan, Cebu, showed Tarcela Lastimoso as the mother of the child but recorded the father as "no conocido" (unknown).

Alisoso filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Cebu praying that an order be issued striking out his name from the record of birth of Leonilo Lastimoso so that he would not be associated with the child's paternity. The petition sought to correct the birth record that had attributed his paternity to the child.

The facts material to the Supreme Court's analysis were undisputed: Alisoso was not the father of Leonilo Lastimoso; he had no amorous relations with Tarcela Lastimoso, as admitted in her affidavit; and Lucila O. Lastimoso, who reported the false entry, was a mere interloper or one bereft of any authority to make such entry.

• Nature of the Correction: Respondents maintained that the court a quo erred in entertaining the petition and ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Pinamungajan to strike out petitioner's name as father and state instead that the father was unknown, because the correction was not merely clerical but involved a change affecting the paternity and filiation of both petitioner and the child Leonilo Lastimoso.
• Scope of Article 412: Respondents argued that Article 412 of the New Civil Code contemplates only corrections of mistakes that are clerical in nature, not those affecting the civil status, nationality, or citizenship of the persons involved, and authorizes no more than harmless and innocuous changes such as correction of a clearly misspelled name or occupation of parents.
• Proper Action for Substantial Changes: Respondents contended that if the correction refers to a substantial change affecting the status or citizenship of a party, the matter should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon the nature of the issue involved.

• Scope of Article 412: Whether the correction sought—striking out petitioner's name as the father of Leonilo Lastimoso from the birth record and stating that his father is unknown—falls within the clerical corrections authorized by Article 412 of the New Civil Code, or instead affects paternity and filiation and therefore requires a proper action.
• Propriety of the Order: Whether the court a quo erred in entertaining the petition and ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Pinamungajan to strike out petitioner's name as the alleged father and to state that the father is unknown.

• Scope of Article 412: No. The correction was not an ordinary clerical correction under Article 412, but the order was affirmed because the undisputed facts showed a false paternity entry made by an unauthorized person and were parallel to Roces vs. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila.
• Propriety of the Order: No. The court a quo did not err in entertaining the petition and ordering the correction, since the entry was false and unauthorized and the facts were parallel to Roces.

• Scope of Article 412: The general rule invoked by respondents, drawn from Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic and Ansaldo vs. Republic, is that Article 412 authorizes only clerical or harmless corrections and not substantial changes affecting civil status, nationality, or citizenship. The Court did not rest on that general rule. It instead considered the peculiar undisputed facts: petitioner was not the father of Leonilo Lastimoso; he had no amorous relations with Tarcela Lastimoso, as admitted in her affidavit; and Lucila O. Lastimoso, who reported the false entry, was a mere interloper without authority to make it. These facts were parallel to Roces vs. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila. In Roces, the birth certificate showed that the alleged father had not signed the instrument; the statements relative to the identity of the father were an open violation of law; the local civil registrar had no authority to incorporate those unlawful statements; and the entry as to the identity of the father was null and void and should be cancelled or corrected. Because the facts in both cases were parallel and undisputed, and the entry in the local registrar was false and should be corrected or deleted, the Court found no justifiable reason to adopt a different ruling. The order was therefore affirmed.
• Propriety of the Order: The same reasoning disposed of the claim that the court a quo erred in entertaining the petition. The undisputed facts established that the paternity entry was false and was made by a person without authority. Under the Roces ruling, the local civil registrar had no authority to incorporate such unlawful statements, and the entry was null and void as to the identity of the father and should be cancelled or corrected. The Court thus agreed with the court a quo and affirmed its order.

• False Paternity Entry by Unauthorized Person — A birth record entry identifying a person as the father of a child may be cancelled or corrected where the entry is false, was made without the alleged father's knowledge or consent, and was reported by a person who had no authority to register the birth. The local civil registrar has no authority to incorporate unlawful statements into its records, and the entry as to paternity is null and void and should be cancelled or corrected. This doctrine was drawn from Roces vs. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila and applied in Alisoso because the facts were parallel.
• Article 412 and the Clerical-Error Limitation — Article 412 of the New Civil Code generally authorizes only clerical or harmless corrections in civil registry entries, not substantial changes affecting civil status, nationality, or citizenship. The Court did not expand this provision generally; it affirmed the correction on the peculiar undisputed facts and the Roces ruling.
• Parallel-Facts Application — Where the material facts of a case are undisputed and parallel to those in a prior controlling decision, the Court will apply that decision and will find no justifiable reason to adopt a different ruling. The Court applied Roces to Alisoso on this basis.

• "But considering the peculiar facts obtaining in this case which are not disputed, to the affect that petitioner is not the father of minor Leonilo Lastimoso, nor has he any amorous relations with his mother Tarcela, as admitted in her affidavit, and that the one who reported that false entry, one Lucila O. Lastimoso, is a mere interloper or one bereft of any authority to make such entry, which are parallel to the facts obtaining in the case of Roces v. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila (L-10598, February 14, 1958), the court a quo granted the petition on the strength of the ruling laid down in the case above mentioned." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: it identifies the undisputed facts that led the Court to treat the case as parallel to Roces and to affirm the order.
• "It appearing on the face of the birth certificate of Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces, that the alleged father of the child has not signed the instrument, it is clear that the statements therein relative to the identity of the father of said child were and are, an open violation of the law. Consequently, the local civil registrar — who is duty bound to comply with said law and is was partly with its enforcement — had no authority to incorporate said unlawful statements in the corresponding entry made by him in the records of his office, and that the entry, insofar as the identity of the father of Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces is null and void, and should be cancelled or corrected." — This excerpt from Roces, quoted in the decision, supplies the controlling rule that a local civil registrar has no authority to incorporate unlawful paternity statements and that such entry is null and void and should be corrected.
• "Since the facts obtaining in both cases are parallel and are undisputed and show that the entry made in the corresponding local registrar is false and as such it should be corrected or deleted, We find no justifiable reason for adopting a different ruling insofar as this case is concerned. In this sense, we agree with the views expressed by the court a quo." — This passage states the Court's conclusion that the parallel and undisputed facts required the same result as Roces and warranted affirmance of the court a quo.

• Roces vs. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila, L-10598, February 14, 1958 — Controlling precedent; the Court found the facts parallel and affirmed the order on the strength of its ruling.
• Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic, L-5609, February 5, 1954 — Cited by respondents for the general rule that Article 412 covers clerical mistakes, not changes affecting civil status, nationality, or citizenship; the Court did not apply it to bar relief because of the peculiar undisputed facts.
• Ansaldo vs. Republic, L-10226, February 14, 1958 — Cited by respondents for the proposition that Article 412 authorizes only harmless and innocuous changes; likewise not applied to defeat the correction under the Roces doctrine.

• Article 412, New Civil Code — Governs correction of entries in the civil registry. Respondents invoked it to argue that only clerical or harmless corrections are allowed and that the correction sought, affecting paternity and filiation, required a proper action. The Court affirmed the correction despite this limitation because the undisputed facts were parallel to Roces and the entry was false and unauthorized.
• Act No. 3753 — In the Roces excerpt quoted by the Court, the false paternity information was alleged to be contrary to Act No. 3753. The local civil registrar was duty bound to comply with the law and had no authority to incorporate unlawful statements into its records.
• Article 280, Civil Code — Also cited in the Roces excerpt as a provision violated by the false paternity entry. The Court relied on Roces in holding that the entry as to paternity was null and void and should be cancelled or corrected.

Bengzon, C.J., J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur. Concepcion, J., took no part.