Fox vs. Philippine Statistics Authority

A petition for correction of entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court must be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located, and the failure to implead the civil registrar as an indispensable party renders the proceedings void for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner Roice Anne F. Fox married Thomas Kenneth K. Fox, a Canadian citizen, in Davao City in 2012. The couple settled in Weyburn, Saskatchewan, Canada, where petitioner gave birth to their daughter Zion Pearl Fox on June 27, 2015. The birth was registered in Canada with the correct date. In June 2016, the Philippine Consulate Office in Calgary, Alberta submitted a Report of Birth to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in Manila, but erroneously indicated the birthdate as June 27, 2016 instead of June 27, 2015.

• The Marriage and Birth Abroad: Petitioner married Thomas Kenneth K. Fox, a Canadian citizen, in Davao City on October 29, 2012. The couple immediately relocated to Weyburn, Saskatchewan, Canada. Petitioner gave birth to their daughter Zion Pearl Fox on June 27, 2015 in Canada. The birth was registered with the Registrar's Office in Regina, Saskatchewan, correctly stating the birthdate as June 27, 2015, and a Canadian passport was issued in October 2015 reflecting the correct date.
• The Erroneous Report of Birth: On June 7, 2016, the Philippine Consulate Office (PCO) in Calgary, Alberta submitted a Report of Birth to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) national office in Manila. Due to oversight, the PCO erroneously indicated the child's birthdate as June 27, 2016 instead of the correct date of June 27, 2015.
• Consulate Advice: Petitioner brought the discrepancy to the PCO's attention. Instead of correcting the error administratively, PCO officials advised her to file a petition before the proper court in the Philippines for correction of the entry.
• The Filed Petition: On January 17, 2017, petitioner filed a petition entitled "In the Matter of the Petition of Roice Anne F. Fox to Correct in the Report of Birth under Registration Number 2016-124030 the Year of Birth of Her Minor Daughter Zion Pearl F. Fox From June 27, 2016 to June 27, 2015" before the RTC of Davao City, where she resided.
• RTC Dismissal: In an Order dated March 24, 2017, the RTC motu proprio dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that under Section 1 of Rule 108, the proper venue is the RTC of the province where the civil registry is located, which is Manila where the PSA is situated, not Davao City.
• Denial of Reconsideration: The RTC denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated July 24, 2017, reiterating that since the Report of Birth was recorded directly with the PSA in Manila and not with any local civil registrar in Davao City, the RTC of Davao City lacked jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction and Venue: Petitioner maintained that the RTC of Davao City had jurisdiction over the petition for correction of entry, raising as a pure question of law whether the RTC was correct in motu proprio dismissing the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

• Venue under Rule 108: Whether the Regional Trial Court of Davao City has jurisdiction over a petition for correction of entry where the civil registry containing the Report of Birth is located in Manila.
• Indispensable Party: Whether the failure to implead the civil registrar as an indispensable party affects the court's jurisdiction over the petition.

• Venue is Jurisdictional: The dismissal was proper. Section 1 of Rule 108 requires that petitions for correction of entries in the civil register be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. Because the Report of Birth was registered directly with the Philippine Statistics Authority in Manila, the civil registry is located in Manila, making the RTC of Manila the proper venue. The specific venue provisions of Rule 108, being a special proceeding, must be observed to vest the court with jurisdiction.
• Indispensable Party: The failure to implead the civil registrar as an indispensable party further supports the dismissal. Under Republic v. Court of Appeals, the civil registrar is an indispensable party without whom no final determination can be had. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent proceedings, including the judgment, ineffectual and void for lack of jurisdiction.
• Without Prejudice: The dismissal is without prejudice to the refiling of the petition in the proper court (RTC of Manila) with full compliance to the specific requirements of Rule 108, including the impleading of the civil registrar.

• Jurisdictional Nature of Venue in Rule 108 Proceedings — In special proceedings for correction of entries under Rule 108, venue is not merely procedural but jurisdictional. Section 1 requires the petition to be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. The Court applied this by holding that because the Report of Birth was registered with the PSA in Manila, the RTC of Davao City lacked jurisdiction.
• Civil Registrar as Indispensable Party — The local civil registrar is an indispensable party in petitions for correction of entries under Rule 108. The failure to implead the civil registrar and to give notice by publication renders the proceedings null and void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the subject matter.

• "Rule 108 is a special proceeding for which specific rules apply... Given that Rule 108 pertains to a special proceeding, the specific provisions stated thereunder, particularly on venue, must be observed in order to vest the court with jurisdiction." — Emphasizes the jurisdictional nature of venue in Rule 108 proceedings.
• "The local civil registrar is thus required to be made a party to the proceeding. He is an indispensable party, without whom no final determination of the case can be had... The necessary consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar as an indispensable party and to give notice by publication of the petition for correction of entry was concerned, null and void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the subject matter." — Establishes the mandatory requirement of impleading the civil registrar.

• Fujiki v. Marinay, 712 Phil. 524 (2013) — Cited for the proposition that Rule 108 is a special proceeding creating a remedy to rectify facts of a person's life recorded by the State pursuant to the Civil Register Law.
• Republic v. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 361 (1996) — Controlling precedent establishing that the civil registrar is an indispensable party in Rule 108 proceedings and that failure to implead him renders the judgment void for lack of jurisdiction.

• Section 1, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Governs who may file petitions for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil register and establishes venue as the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.
• Section 2, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Enumerates entries subject to cancellation or correction, including births.
• Rule 1, Section 3, Rules of Court — Defines special proceedings as remedies by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
• Act No. 3753 (The Civil Register Law) — The law pursuant to which the State records facts of public consequence such as birth, death, or marriage.

Peralta (Chairperson), Leonen, Hernando, and Carandang, JJ.