Santos vs. Republic of the Philippines

A petition for correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 that seeks substantial changes affecting a party's civil status, filiation, or citizenship requires the impleading of the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby; failure to implead such persons, which publication of the notice of hearing does not by itself cure, warrants dismissal of the petition.

Eduardo Santos was born in Manila on June 10, 1952 to Nga Cu Lay, a Chinese national, and Juana Santos, a Filipino, who lived together as common-law husband and wife because Nga Cu Lay purportedly had a subsisting marriage to a Chinese woman in China. His certificate of live birth, as filled out and registered by the attending midwife, indicated his nationality as "Chinese," his filiation as "Legitimate," and his mother's civil status as "married." Eduardo claimed that he had always used his mother's surname, "Santos," and that he had elected Philippine citizenship in due time.

Eduardo Santos was born in Manila on June 10, 1952 to Nga Cu Lay, a Chinese national, and Juana Santos, a Filipino. His parents lived together as common-law husband and wife, as Nga Cu Lay purportedly had a subsisting marriage to a Chinese woman in China. When Eduardo was born, the midwife who filled out and registered his certificate of live birth erroneously indicated his nationality as "Chinese" and his filiation as "Legitimate," and further indicated that his Filipino mother was "married" to his Chinese father. Eduardo averred that he had always used his mother's surname, "Santos," and that he elected Filipino citizenship in due time.

On August 9, 2011, Eduardo filed a petition for correction of entries and cancellation of annotation in his certificate of live birth under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, praying that his records in the civil registry be corrected to reflect his surname as "Santos" instead of "Cu," his nationality as "Filipino" instead of "Chinese," his filiation as "illegitimate" instead of "legitimate," and his mother's civil status as "single" instead of "married." Impleaded as respondents were the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, the National Statistics Office, and all persons who shall be affected by the proceedings. The Office of the Solicitor General was notified through service of a copy of the petition.

After compliance with the jurisdictional requirements and upon due notification to the Office of the Solicitor General, the National Statistics Office, and the Local Civil Registrar of the City of Manila, Eduardo presented his evidence, consisting of: (a) his Election of Philippine Citizenship; (b) his Oath of Allegiance; (c) the affidavit of his mother Juana Santos stating that he is an illegitimate child because she was not legally married to his Chinese father; (d) documents showing that he exercised his right of suffrage; (e) his Judicial Affidavit; (f) his certificate of live birth; (g) the Death Certificate of Juana Santos, who died on May 30, 1994; (h) the Death Certificate of Cu Lay, who died on May 9, 1973, stating that he was married to a certain Dy Yam of China; and (i) other documents showing Eduardo's use of the surname "Santos."

The RTC found that Eduardo had satisfied the publication requirement under Section 4 of Rule 108 and rejected the public prosecutor's claim that his evidence was hearsay and self-serving and that his recourse was misplaced because of his own admission that he was Chinese by birth. The RTC held that Eduardo had satisfactorily shown that he was entitled to the reliefs prayed for, and ordered the Local Civil Register of Manila and the National Census and Statistics Office to effect the necessary corrections. On appeal, the CA agreed that Eduardo's citizenship is Filipino because the 1935 Constitution, in force at the time of his birth, provides that a child born of a Filipino mother who elects Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority is a Filipino citizen. However, the CA found that Eduardo failed to overcome the legal presumption that he is a legitimate child of his parents, giving credence to his certificate of live birth as formidable evidence pursuant to the Civil Code and Article 172 of the Family Code. The CA held that upon expiration of the periods fixed in Article 170, and in proper cases Article 171, of the Family Code, the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child would no longer be legally feasible, and that only the father, or in exceptional instances his heirs, can contest in an appropriate action the legitimacy of a child born to his wife. The CA likewise held that Juana's affidavit hardly established Eduardo's alleged illegitimate filiation, since a child born during a marriage shall be considered legitimate even if the mother may have declared against its legitimacy.

• Mother's Notarized Affidavit: Eduardo insisted that the CA failed to give credence to his mother's notarized affidavit stating that she was not legally married to Nga Cu Lay, and asserted that the affidavit should be admitted as it enjoys the presumption of regularity and should suffice in establishing his illegitimate status.
• Certificate of No Marriage: Eduardo attached a Certificate of No Marriage (CENOMAR) purportedly issued by the NSO to prove that Juana does not appear in the National Indices of Marriage.
• Use of Mother's Surname: Eduardo maintained that he should be allowed to use the surname of his mother because he has been using "Santos" in all of his dealings and transactions, as shown in various documents he presented.
• Corroboration Not Required: In his Reply, Eduardo pointed out that a family member need not corroborate his testimony on matters contained in his mother's affidavit because this is not required under Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules, and that it is sufficient that the relationship between Eduardo and Juana is shown by evidence other than her declaration in her affidavit, such as his certificate of live birth.
• Inapplicability of Article 170: Eduardo highlighted that the rule in Article 170 of the Family Code limiting to the husband, or in his default his heirs, the action to impugn the legitimacy of the child presupposes the existence of a valid marriage between the parents of the child, which is not present in this case; absent a valid marriage between his parents, the restriction in Article 170 cannot apply.

• Inadmissibility of the Affidavit: The OSG argued that the affidavit of Juana cannot be admitted as evidence of Eduardo's pedigree, particularly his relationship with his parents who allegedly were not married, for failure of another family member to testify thereon.
• Bar Against Questioning Legitimacy: The OSG argued that even if Eduardo himself may properly testify on Juana's affidavit, the Family Code bars him and Juana from questioning his legitimacy.
• CENOMAR Improperly Introduced: The OSG argued that the CENOMAR attached to the petition cannot be considered by the Court as it was not presented and formally offered during trial.

• Propriety of Rule 108 as a Remedy: Whether Eduardo may impugn his legitimate status and claim that he is a Filipino citizen through a petition for correction of entries in his certificate of live birth filed under Rule 108 of the Rules.

• Propriety of Rule 108 as a Remedy: No. The changes sought were substantial and could only be resolved through adversary proceedings under Rule 108, and Eduardo failed to implead all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the corrections, as required by Section 3 of Rule 108. The petition was dismissed, without prejudice.

• Propriety of Rule 108 as a Remedy: At the outset, the Court noted that neither party assailed the authority of the lower court to order the correction of entries in Eduardo's certificate of live birth through a petition filed under Rule 108, and that the resolution of the propriety of the remedy Eduardo availed was indispensable and crucial in determining whether the CA's decision should be upheld. Citing Section 8, Rule 51 of the Rules, the Court explained that, as a rule, a court does not have power to decide questions except as presented by the parties in their pleadings, and that no error not assigned and argued may be considered unless it is closely related to or dependent on an assigned error, or it affects the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment. The courts have ample authority to rule on matters not raised by the parties if such issues are indispensable or necessary to the just and final resolution of the pleaded issues, as explained in Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees' Association vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. The Court thus waived the lack of proper assignment of errors and considered the issue of the propriety of the remedy.

Under Section 2 of Rule 108, the entries in the civil register that may be cancelled or corrected include births, election, loss or recovery of citizenship, and judicial determination of filiation. In Republic vs. Valencia, the Court clarified that a petition for correction of entry under Rule 108 covers not only clerical errors but also substantial changes, the difference lying only in the procedure that would govern the correction sought. In Republic vs. Tipay, the Court clarified that if the correction is clerical, the procedure to be adopted is summary; if the rectification affects the civil status, citizenship, or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the procedure to be adopted is adversary. A perusal of the arguments alleged in the petition and the reliefs prayed for revealed that the changes sought to be reflected were substantial and could only be resolved through appropriate adversary proceedings under Rule 108. Eduardo sought the correction of his surname from "Cu" to "Santos," his nationality from "Chinese" to "Filipino," his filiation from "legitimate" to "illegitimate," and his mother's civil status from "married" to "single." These were not mere clerical errors, as the changes sought to be carried out were substantial; it was not a simple or negligible matter of correcting a single letter in his surname due to a misspelling. Rather, Eduardo's filiation, status, and citizenship would be gravely affected, affecting not only his identity but his successional rights as well.

Considering the nature of the changes sought, Rule 108 requires that the proper parties be impleaded and that the order fixing the time and place for hearing the petition be published. Under Section 3 of Rule 108, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are: (1) the civil registrar; and (2) all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby. In this case, the civil registrar was properly impleaded, and it is settled that both parents of Eduardo are already dead and may no longer be impleaded in his petition. Though publication of the notice of hearing may cure the failure to implead all affected or interested parties in certain cases, Eduardo failed to demonstrate to the Court that he exerted earnest efforts in bringing to court all possible interested parties, including his siblings, their descendants, and the purported Chinese wife of his father. Simply alleging in his petition that he is impleading "all persons who shall be affected" by the proceedings does not satisfy the requirement under Section 3 of Rule 108. Even assuming that there are no other existing interested parties who may be affected by the outcome of the petition and that there is substantial compliance with Section 3 of Rule 108, the Court still could not grant the reliefs prayed for in Eduardo's petition.

Nevertheless, the dismissal of Eduardo's petition was without prejudice to the filing of another petition under Rule 108 to modify his surname from "Cu" to "Santos," the last name of his mother. This is consistent with the Court's recent ruling in Alanis III vs. Court of Appeals, where the petitioner was permitted to use his mother's surname when he filed a petition for change of name, the Court holding that "a legitimate child is entitled to use the surname of either parent as a last name." The change in Eduardo's surname may be permitted after impleading the civil registrar and "all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby" and upon presentation of all his evidence, including the purported CENOMAR of his parents which he improperly introduced for the first time at this stage of the proceedings. The trial court shall direct the Philippine Statistics Authority to submit an authenticated certificate confirming the fact of marriage or no marriage between the parents of Eduardo, Juana Santos and Nga Cu Lay. In view of the foregoing, the Court no longer deemed it necessary to discuss the other arguments raised by the parties.

• Rule 108 Covers Both Clerical and Substantial Changes — A petition for correction of entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court covers not only clerical errors but also substantial changes, the difference lying only in the procedure that would govern the correction sought. Where the correction is clerical, the procedure is summary; where the rectification affects the civil status, citizenship, or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the procedure is adversary. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that Eduardo's sought corrections of surname, nationality, filiation, and his mother's civil status were substantial and required adversary proceedings.

• Indispensable Parties in Rule 108 Petitions — Under Section 3 of Rule 108, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are: (1) the civil registrar; and (2) all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby. Publication of the notice of hearing may cure the failure to implead all affected or interested parties in certain cases, but the petitioner must demonstrate that he exerted earnest efforts in bringing to court all possible interested parties. A mere allegation in the petition that the petitioner is impleading "all persons who shall be affected" does not satisfy the requirement. The Court applied this doctrine in dismissing Eduardo's petition for failure to implead his siblings, their descendants, and his father's purported Chinese wife.

• Surname of a Legitimate Child — A legitimate child is entitled to use the surname of either parent as a last name. The Court relied on this doctrine in ruling that the dismissal of Eduardo's petition was without prejudice to the filing of another petition under Rule 108 to modify his surname from "Cu" to "Santos," the last name of his mother.

• Authority to Rule on Unassigned Errors — The Supreme Court has ample authority to review and resolve matters not assigned and specified as errors by either of the parties in the appeal if it finds the consideration and determination of the same essential and indispensable in order to arrive at a just decision in the case. The Court may waive the lack of proper assignment of errors if the unassigned errors closely relate to errors properly pinpointed out, or if the unassigned errors refer to matters upon which the determination of the questions raised by the errors properly assigned depend. The Court applied this doctrine in resolving the propriety of the remedy Eduardo availed even though neither party had assailed the authority of the lower court to order the correction of entries under Rule 108.

• "If the correction is clerical, then the procedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification affects the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the procedure to be adopted is adversary." — This passage, drawn from Republic vs. Tipay, states the controlling distinction between clerical and substantial corrections under Rule 108 and supplies the ratio for the Court's holding that Eduardo's sought changes required adversary proceedings.

• "Simply alleging in his petition that he is impleading 'all persons who shall be affected' by the proceedings does not satisfy the requirement under Section 3 of Rule 108." — This passage articulates the Court's core reason for dismissing the petition: the failure to implead all persons having an interest in the correction, which publication alone does not cure.

• "a legitimate child is entitled to use the surname of either parent as a last name." — This passage, quoted from Alanis III vs. Court of Appeals, grounds the Court's ruling that the dismissal was without prejudice to a subsequent petition to change Eduardo's surname from "Cu" to "Santos."

• "The Supreme Court has ample authority to review and resolve matters not assigned and specified as errors by either of the parties in the appeal if it finds the consideration and determination of the same essential and indispensable in order to arrive at a just decision in the case." — This passage, drawn from Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees' Association vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., justifies the Court's resolution of the propriety of the Rule 108 remedy despite the parties' failure to raise it as an assigned error.

• Republic vs. Valencia, 225 Phil. 408 (1986) — Cited to support the rule that a petition for correction of entry under Rule 108 covers not only clerical errors but also substantial changes, with the difference lying only in the procedure governing the correction sought.
• Republic vs. Tipay, 826 Phil. 88, 99 (2018) — Cited for the controlling distinction between clerical corrections (summary procedure) and substantial corrections affecting civil status, citizenship, or nationality (adversary procedure), which the Court applied to characterize Eduardo's sought changes as substantial.
• Alanis III vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 216425, November 11, 2020 — Cited as the basis for permitting the change of Eduardo's surname to that of his mother, the Court having held therein that a legitimate child is entitled to use the surname of either parent as a last name.
• Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees' Association vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., 166 Phil. 505 (1977) — Cited to establish the Court's authority to review and resolve matters not assigned as errors where their consideration is essential and indispensable to a just decision, which the Court invoked to address the propriety of the Rule 108 remedy.
• Republic vs. Olaybar, 726 Phil. 378 (2014) — Cited in Republic vs. Tipay for the distinction between clerical and substantial corrections under Rule 108.

• Section 2, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Enumerates the entries in the civil register that may be cancelled or corrected upon good and valid grounds, including births, election, loss or recovery of citizenship, and judicial determination of filiation. The Court cited this provision to establish the scope of entries subject to correction under Rule 108.
• Section 3, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Requires that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the cancellation or correction be made parties to the proceeding. The Court applied this provision in holding that Eduardo failed to implead all interested parties, including his siblings, their descendants, and his father's purported Chinese wife.
• Section 4, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Requires the court, upon filing of the petition, to fix the time and place for hearing and to cause the order to be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. The Court cited this provision in discussing the publication requirement and held that publication does not by itself cure the failure to implead all affected or interested parties.
• Section 5, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Allows the civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought to file an opposition within fifteen days from notice of the petition or from the last date of publication of such notice. The Court cited this provision in outlining the procedural requirements for adversary proceedings under Rule 108.
• Section 8, Rule 51, Rules of Court — Provides that no errors not affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain and clerical errors. The Court cited this provision in justifying its authority to resolve the propriety of the Rule 108 remedy despite the lack of an assigned error.
• Article 170, Family Code — Limits to the husband, or in his default his heirs, the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child. The CA relied on this provision in holding that Eduardo could no longer impugn his legitimacy, while Eduardo argued that it presupposes a valid marriage between the parents, which was absent in his case.
• Article 172, Family Code — Cited by the CA as basis for treating Eduardo's certificate of live birth as formidable evidence for purposes of recognition and filiation.
• 1935 Constitution — Cited by the CA in holding that a child born of a Filipino mother who elects Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority is a Filipino citizen, the 1935 Constitution being in force at the time of Eduardo's birth.

Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.