LEGITIMATE CHILD IS A PROPER PARTY IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR CANCELLATION OF

BIRTH CERTIFICATE. A birth certificate may be ordered cancelled upon adequate proof that it is
fictitious. The legitimate child of the mother is a proper party in the proceedings for the cancellation of
the said certificate if her inheritance rights are adversely affected. (Babiera vs. Catotal, G.R. No.
138493, June 15, 2000)

x—————x

Teofista Babiera vs. Presentacion B. Catotal

G.R. No. 138493, June 15, 2000
Panganiban, J.

FACTS:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the CA decision declaring the Certificate
of Birth of respondent Teofista Guinto as null and void ab initio.

Presentacion B. Catotal filed with the RTC a petition for the cancellation of the entry of birth of Teofista
Babiera in the Civil Registry of Iligan City. Petitioner asserted that she is the only surviving child of the
late spouses Babiera, and that on September 20, 1996, the housemaid’s baby girl was delivered in the
house of the spouses without their knowledge whose birth certificate was simulated indicating that she
was the child of the spouses. Petitioner asserted that the birth certificate of Teofista is void ab initio, as
it was simulated and contained false entries since the child is made to appear as the legitimate child of
the late spouses when she is not. The certificate is signed neither by the civil registrar nor by the
supposed mother. Further, the family name BABIERA is false and unlawful because her correct family
name is GUINTO, her mother being single. Likewise, it is clinically and medically impossible for the
supposed parents to bear a child in 1956 because Hermogena was already 54 years old, and Eugenio
was already 65 years old. The void and simulated birth certificate of Teofista Guinto would affect the
hereditary rights of petitioner who inherited the estate, hence, she prayed that the certificate of birth be
declared void, invalid and ineffective.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff has no legal capacity to file the instant
petition pursuant to Article 171 of the Family Code being an attack against the legitimacy of the child,
and that the action already prescribed, citing Article 170 of the FC. The trial court denied the motionto
dismiss and granted the petition of petitioner Catotal.

ISSUE:
1. Does the petitioner have legal standing to initiate an action questioning the legitimacy of the
respondent?
2. Is the prescriptive period under Art. 170 of the FC applicable in case at bar?

HELD:
1. Yes, petitioner has the requisite standing to initiate the present action because the interest of
respondent in the civil status of petitioner stems from an action for partition concerning the
properties inherited by respondent from her parents. Because her inheritance rights are
adversely affected, the legitimate child of such mother is a proper party in the proceedings for
the cancellation of the said certificate. Moreover, Article 171 of the Family Code is not applicable
in this case as it only applies to instances in which the father impugns the legitimacy of his wife's
child. The provision presupposes that the child was the undisputed offspring of the mother.
Here, the prayer is not to declare that petitioner is an illegitimate child of Hermogena, but to
establish that the former is not the latter's child at all. Verily, the present action does not impugn
petitioner's filiation to Spouses Eugenio and Hermogena Babiera, because there is no blood
relation to impugn in the first place.

2. No, the prescriptive period set forth in Article 170 of the Family Code does not apply. The
present action involves the cancellation of Birth Certificate; it does not impugn her legitimacy.
A birth certificate may be ordered cancelled upon adequate proof that it is fictitious. Here, the
certificate shows that the mother was already fifty-four years old at the time of the child's birth
and which was signed neither by the civil registrar nor by the supposed mother. Verily, the action
to nullify the Birth Certificate does not prescribe, because it was allegedly void ab initio.