G.R. No.

197099

EUGENIO SAN JUAN GERONIMO, Petitioner,

vs.
KAREN SANTOS, Respondent.

On the first issue, petitioner argues that secondary evidence to prove one’s filiation is admissible only if there is no
primary evidence, i.e, a record of birth or an authentic admission in writing.  Petitioner asserts that herein
12

respondent’s birth certificate, Exhibit 14, constitutes the primary evidence enumerated under Article 172 of the Family
Code and the ruling of both courts a quo  that the document is not the one "envisioned by law" should have barred the
introduction of secondary evidence. Petitioner expounds this proposition, viz.:

The findings of the courts a quo that the birth certificate [Exhibit 14] is not [the] one envisioned by law finds support in
numerous cases decided by the Honorable Supreme Court. Thus, a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the
putative father is not competent evidence as to the issue of paternity, when there is no showing that the putative
father had a hand in the preparation of said certificates, and the Local Civil Registrar is devoid of authority to record
the paternity of an illegitimate child upon the information of a third person. Where the birth certificate and the
baptismal certificate are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation, they cannot be admitted indirectly as
circumstantial evidence to prove the same. 

x x x The birth certificate Exhibit 14 contains erasures. The date of birth originally written in ball pen was erased and
the date April 6, 1972 was superimposed using a pentel pen; the entry on the informant also originally written in ball
pen was erased and the name E. Dano was superimposed using also a pentel pen; there is no signature as to who
received it from the office of the registry. Worst, respondent Karen confirms the existence of her birth certificate when
she introduced in evidence [Exhibit A] a mere Certification from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Sta. Maria,
Ilocos Sur, which highlighted more suspicions of its existence, thus leading to conclusion and presumption that if such
evidence is presented, it would be adverse to her claim. True to the suspicion, when Exhibit 14 was introduced by the
petitioner and testified on by no less than the NSO representative, Mr. Arturo Reyes, and confirmed that there were
alterations which renders the birth certificate questionable.

Argued differently, with the declaration that the birth certificate is a nullity or falsity, the courts a quo should have
stopped there, ruled that respondent Karen is not the child of Rufino, and therefore not entitled to inherit from the
estate.13

ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:

(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or

(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed
by the parent concerned.

In the absence of the following evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:

(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or

(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

Petitioner is correct that proof of legitimacy under Article 172, or illegitimacy under Article 175, should only be raised
in a direct and separate action instituted to prove the filiation of a child. The rationale behind this procedural
prescription is stated in the case of Tison v. Court of Appeals,  viz.:
19
x x x [W]ell settled is the rule that the issue of legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally.

Only the husband can contest the legitimacy of a child born to his wife. He is the one directly confronted with the
scandal and ridicule which the infidelity of his wife produces; and he should decide whether to conceal that infidelity
or expose it, in view of the moral and economic interest involved. It is only in exceptional cases that his heirs are
allowed to contest such legitimacy. Outside of these cases, none – even his heirs – can impugn legitimacy; that
would amount to an insult to his memory." 20

SC : Legitimacy and Paternity Issues Cannot Be Resolved in Petition for

Correction of Birth Certificate Entries
November 19, 2019
“The legitimacy and filiation of children cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for correction of
entries in the certificate of live birth.”

The Supreme Court (SC), through the ponencia of Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, nullified and set aside
the declarations of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Masbate City that
upheld the legitimacy and filiation of an illegitimate child who had carried the surname of her alleged
father. The Court held though that its decision was without prejudice to the refiling of the appropriate
action before the proper court.

The SC held that the sole issue for resolution is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s
judgment allowing private respondent Joan Espenida Miller to continue using the surname Miller.

Joan is allegedly the illegitimate child of her mother Lennie Espenida with John Miller. The latter was
legally married to Beatriz Marcaida with whom he has four children – petitioner Glenn and siblings
Charles, Betty, and John Jr.

The SC held that the initiatory pleading before the RTC of petitioner Glenn Miller, who is now
substituted by his surviving heirs, was a Petition for Correction of Entries in Joan’s birth certificate. In
his RTC petition, Glenn prayed for the cancellation of Joan’s certificate of live birth. He also prayed
that the RTC direct the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of Gubat, Sorsogon to replace Joan’s surname,
Miller, with Espenida, and that Joan use Espenida instead of Miller in all official documents.

The SC stressed that petitioners sought the correction of Joan’s surname in her birth certificate
registered as LCR No. 825. They want Joan to use her mother’s surname, Espenida, instead of Miller,
claiming that she was not an acknowledged illegitimate child of the late John Miller. This type of
petition, according to the SC, is governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court on the Cancellation or
Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry.

Citing Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, the Court held that
“legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party,
and not through collateral attack.” It added that impugning the legitimacy of a child is governed by
Article 171 of the Family Code, not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

“What petitioners seek is not a mere clerical change. It is not a simple matter of correcting a single
letter in private respondent’s surname due to a misspelling. Rather, private respondent’s filiation will
be gravely affected, as changing her surname from Miller to Espenida will also change her status. This
will affect not only her identity, but her successional rights as well. Certainly, this change is
substantial,” held the Court.

After John Miller’s death, Joan, through her mother Lennie, filed before the RTC a Petition for Partition
and Accounting of John’s estate with a prayer for preliminary attachment, receivership, support, and
damages. Lennie presented Joan’s birth certificate which purportedly showed John to be her registered
father.

Thereafter, Glenn filed the said separate petition seeking the cancellation of Joan’s birth certificate. He
claimed that his father did not acknowledge Joan as a natural child, pointing out that the Miller
patriarch’s signature was not in her birth certificate.

Joan countered Glenn’s claims contenting that while her alleged father did not sign her birth
certificate, John Miller openly and continuously recognized her as his child. She said that she grew up
in his ranch and that it was John Miller who had financed her studies at John Miller Primary School.
She also said that John Miller, in his holographic will, gave her 1/8 share of his estate and, in a 1987
document, had assigned Betty to act as her guardian and her inheritance administrator until she
attains the age of majority. Joan also said Betty obtained an education plan for her upon John Miller’s
bidding.

On November 26, 2004, the RTC issued a judgment in Joan’s favor and held that “due recognition of
an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any
authentic writing is, in itself, a consummate act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further action
is required.” Glenn elevated the case to the CA which denied his appeal on June 30, 2011. The CA,
applying Article 173 in relation to Article 173 of the Family Code, found that John’s holographic will,
where he gave Joan 1/8 of his estate, had sufficiently established his paternity. Glenn moved for
reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA in 2012. That same year, Glenn, through his
surviving legal heirs, filed before the SC a Petition for Review on Certiorari against Joan and the Local
Civil Registrar of Gubat, Sorsogon.

In the case at bar, the SC held that the sole issue for resolution is whether or not the CA erred in
affirming the RTC’s judgment allowing Joan to continue using the surname Miller and that “legitimacy
and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not
through collateral attack.” It affirmed the assailed CA rulings insofar as they affirm the 2004 Judgment
of Masbate RTC, Branch 48, which dismissed the Petition for Correction of Entries in Joan’s certificate
of live birth.

The SC also resolved to treat the Memorandum of petitioners as a formal administrative complaint
against Judge Jacinta B. Tambago of Branch 48, RTC, Masbate City. The administrative complaint is
referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for proper investigation, report, and
recommendation.

(1) Distinction Between ‘Paternity’ and ‘Filiation’ While paternity (maternity) is the civil status
relationship of the father (mother) to the child, fi liation is the civil status or relationship of the child to
the father or mother.

Rule 103 vs 108 of the Rules of Court

"Subject of the instant petition is the "Petition for Correction of the Entries in the Certificate of Live
Birth" filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig by herein respondent Kris Anne Dela Vega
Vergara seeking the correction of her name from, "Ronald" to "Kris Anne," and her sex from "Male" to
"Female," as appearing in her Certificate of Live Birth.
Respondent alleged that she was born on November 7, 1983 in Pasig City and was baptized in
accordance with the rites of the Roman Catholic Church; that since her childhood, she has been using
and still is using the name KRIS ANNE DELA VEGA VERGARA as shown by her baptismal, school and
employment records; that, subsequently, upon securing a copy of her Certificate of Live Birth from the
National Statistics Office (NSO), she learned that the name appearing on the entry with respect to the
name of the child is "RONALD" while the entry for her sex is "M", referring to a male; that she alleged
that the erroneous entries might have been caused by inadvertence on the part of the midwife who
assisted her mother when she gave birth.

The RTC took cognizance of the case, set it for hearing and directed respondent to cause the publication
of the Notice of Hearing of the petition and to send a copy thereof, together with a copy of the petition,
to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City, Office of the Civil Registrar-General and Office of
the Solicitor General. On the day set for hearing, no opposition was registered against the petition.
Hence, upon her motion, respondent was allowed to present evidence ex parte.

On February 12, 2008, the RTC issued an Order granting respondent's petition.

Thereafter, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
filed an appeal with the CA contending that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the proceedings,
since the title of the petition did not contain respondent's aliases as required by Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court.

On February 28, 2011, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision which dismissed the Republic's appeal.

Hence, the instant petition which the Court finds to be without merit.

Petitioner's argument is anchored on the supposition that the proper Rule to be used is Rule 103, not
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

The Court does not agree.

The Court finds no error on the part of the CA when it held that respondent's petition is not for a change
of name as contemplated under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court but for correction of entries under Rule
108 of the same Rules. What respondent seeks is the correction of clerical errors which were committed
in the recording of her name and sex. This Court has held that not all alterations allowed in one's name
are confined under Rule 103 and that corrections for clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108.

The evidence presented by respondent, to wit: baptismal certificate, certificate of confirmation, school
and employment records as well as NBI clearance, indeed shows that, since birth, she has been using the
name "Kris Anne." As to her sex, she presented medical and laboratory reports to show that she is,
biologically, a female. Respondent's mother also testified that she and her husband do not have any son
by the name of "Ronald" and that they only have two children — herein respondent and Christian
Gregor who was born on April 17, 1986. Thus, it is evident from the foregoing that respondent never
had any intention to change her name and sex. What she seeks is simply the removal of the clerical fault
or error in her registered sex and given name, and to set aright the same to conform to her real sex and
the name she grew up with.

In any event, even granting that Rule 103 applies to this case, it still cannot be denied that respondent
complied with the requirements for an adversarial proceeding before the RTC. The publication and
posting of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation and the notices sent to the OSG,
the Civil Registrar-General and the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City are sufficient indicia of an adverse
proceeding. The fact that no one opposed the petition, including the OSG, did not deprive the court of
its jurisdiction to hear the same and did not make the proceedings less adversarial in nature.
Considering that the OSG did not oppose the petition and the motion to present respondent's evidence
ex parte when it had the opportunity to do so, it cannot now complain that the proceedings in the lower
court were defective. In this regard, this Court adheres to the principle that even substantial errors in a
civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule 108 provided the parties
aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding."

||| (Republic v. Vergara, G.R. No. 195873 (Notice), [February 23, 2015])