Republic vs. Felix

A Regional Trial Court, exercising jurisdiction over a petition for correction of entries in a civil registry, has the ancillary authority to order the cancellation of a duplicate registration in another locality, as this is a necessary consequence of the main relief and avoids multiplicity of suits. Furthermore, the enactment of R.A. Nos. 9048 and 10172, which provide an administrative remedy for correcting certain clerical errors, does not divest the courts of their original jurisdiction over such petitions under Rule 108.

Respondent Charlie Mintas Felix discovered that his birth was registered twice: first in Itogon, Benguet, with erroneous entries (first name "Shirley," gender "female," father's surname "Filex"), and second in Carranglan, Nueva Ecija, with correct entries. The National Statistics Office (NSO) issued an authenticated copy of the erroneous Itogon registration. To rectify this, respondent filed a petition for correction of entries in the Itogon certificate and cancellation of the Carranglan certificate before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet.

• Nature of the Action: Respondent filed a verified petition under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court to correct entries in his Certificate of Live Birth on file with the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of Itogon, Benguet, and to cancel a second birth certificate on file with the LCR of Carranglan, Nueva Ecija.
• The Erroneous and Correct Registrations: Respondent alleged he was born on October 1, 1976, in Itogon, Benguet. His birth was registered there, but the certificate contained errors: first name "Shirley" instead of "Charlie," gender "female" instead of "male," and father's surname "Filex" instead of "Felix." A second registration existed in Carranglan, Nueva Ecija, with the correct entries. The NSO issued an authenticated copy of the erroneous Itogon certificate.
• Republic's Defense: The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet lacked jurisdiction to order the LCR of Carranglan, Nueva Ecija to cancel the second birth certificate.
• Trial Court Proceedings: After due notice, publication, and hearing where respondent testified and presented documentary evidence (including a medical certificate), the RTC granted the petition.
• Appellate Court Proceedings: The Republic appealed, reiterating the jurisdictional argument. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the cancellation was incidental to the main action for correction and that splitting the causes of action would violate the rule against multiplicity of suits.

• Jurisdiction Over the LCR of Carranglan: Petitioner (Republic) argued that the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet had no jurisdiction to direct the LCR of Carranglan, Nueva Ecija to cancel the second birth certificate, as the latter was beyond the court's territorial jurisdiction.
• Jurisdictional Infirmity: Petitioner maintained that the cancellation of the Carranglan certificate was not a mere incidental matter but a distinct relief that required a separate action filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over Carranglan.

• Ancillary Jurisdiction and Multiplicity of Suits: Respondent countered that the cancellation of the second birth certificate was a necessary consequence of correcting the first. Requiring two separate petitions would violate the rule against multiplicity of suits.
• In Rem Proceeding: Respondent argued that a petition for correction is an action in rem. Proper publication binds the whole world, including the LCR of Carranglan, which was duly notified, thus curing any jurisdictional defect.

• Ancillary Jurisdiction: Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to order the cancellation of a birth certificate registered in a locality outside its territorial jurisdiction (Carranglan, Nueva Ecija) as an incident to a petition for correction of entries in a birth certificate within its jurisdiction (Itogon, Benguet).
• Effect of R.A. Nos. 9048 and 10172: Whether the enactment of R.A. No. 9048, as amended by R.A. No. 10172, which provides an administrative procedure for correcting clerical or typographical errors in civil registry entries, divested the Regional Trial Courts of their jurisdiction to hear petitions for correction of entries under Rule 108.

• Ancillary Jurisdiction: The RTC validly exercised jurisdiction. The cancellation of the second birth certificate was an incidental matter arising from and connected to the main action for correction. Under the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, a court's jurisdiction over the main case embraces all incidental matters. Ordering cancellation in a separate action would cause unnecessary multiplicity of suits. Furthermore, as an action in rem, the publication of the petition bound the whole world, including the LCR of Carranglan.
• Effect of R.A. Nos. 9048 and 10172: The administrative remedy under R.A. Nos. 9048 and 10172 does not divest the RTCs of their jurisdiction. While these laws transferred the authority to correct certain clerical errors and change first names from the courts to administrative officers, the courts' original jurisdiction under B.P. 129 and Rule 108 remains. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires a party to avail of the administrative process first, but failure to do so does not affect the court's jurisdiction; it merely affects the cause of action and is a ground for a motion to dismiss that can be waived. Here, respondent filed his petition before R.A. No. 10172 took effect, so the correction of his gender could not be done administratively at that time.

• Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction — A court's jurisdiction over the main case includes the authority to resolve all incidental matters arising from and connected to it. This is in aid of the court's authority over the principal matter, even if those incidental matters, as original causes of action, would not independently fall within its cognizance. The Court applied this to hold that the RTC could order the cancellation of the duplicate certificate in another locality as an incident to the correction of the primary certificate.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Jurisdiction — The failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not strip the court of its jurisdiction. It only deprives the plaintiff of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not timely invoked, this ground is deemed waived. The Court cited this principle to affirm that R.A. Nos. 9048 and 10172 did not remove the courts' jurisdiction.

• "Demands, matters, or questions ancillary or incidental to, or growing out of, the main action... may be taken cognizance of by the court and determined, since such jurisdiction is in aid of its authority over the principal matter, even though the court may thus be called on to consider and decide matters which, as original causes of action, would not be within its cognizance." — This passage articulates the core rationale for the ancillary jurisdiction doctrine applied in the case.
• "Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can then take cognizance of the case and try it." — This excerpt clearly distinguishes between jurisdiction and cause of action in the context of administrative remedies.

• Mendez v. Shari'a District Court, 5th Shari'a District, et al., 777 Phil. 143 (2016) — Cited as controlling authority on the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, where the Shari'a Circuit Court's jurisdiction over a divorce case was held to include the power to resolve the ancillary issue of child custody.
• Republic v. Gallo, G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018 — Followed for its ruling that R.A. No. 9048 amended the Civil Code provisions on correction of entries, transferring authority over clerical errors to civil registrants, but that courts retain jurisdiction under Rule 108, subject to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Soto v. Jareno, 228 Phil. 117 (1986) — Cited for the principle that failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not affect the court's jurisdiction.

• Section 19, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — Grants Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions incapable of pecuniary estimation, which includes petitions for correction of entries under Rule 108.
• Rule 108, Revised Rules of Court — Provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil register. The Court affirmed that this rule remains a valid procedural avenue for judicial correction.
• Republic Act No. 9048, as amended by Republic Act No. 10172 — Authorizes city or municipal civil registrars to correct clerical or typographical errors in civil registry entries, including the day and month in the date of birth and the sex of a person, without a judicial order. The Court held that these laws do not remove the courts' jurisdiction but provide a concurrent administrative remedy.

• Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (Chairperson)
• Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (Ponente)
• Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting
• Justice Rodil V. Zalameda
• Justice Manuel M. Barba

Note: Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando was designated as an additional member. Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. recused.

• Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (Separate Opinion) — While concurring in the result, Justice Caguioa's separate opinion emphasized a different reasoning. He agreed that the RTC had jurisdiction but opined that the cancellation of the Carranglan certificate was not merely incidental. He argued that the petition was essentially one for the cancellation of a duplicate certificate, which is a principal action under Rule 108, and the RTC's jurisdiction over it was direct, not ancillary. He also stressed that R.A. No. 9048, as amended, did not divest the RTCs of jurisdiction but merely provided an alternative administrative remedy.