Babiera vs.

Catotal 333 SCRA 487

TEOFISTA BABIERA v. PRESENTACION B. CATOTAL
G.R. No. 138493. June 15, 2000, PANGANIBAN, J.

The present action involves the cancellation of Babiera's Birth Certificate, it does not impugn her
legitimacy. The specific attendant in the case at bar and the totality of the evidence presented
during trial, sufficiently negates the presumption of regularity in the issuance of birth certificate.

Facts:
Presentacion Catotal questioned the authenticity of the entry of birth of Teofista Babiera. She
asserted that the birth certificate is void ab initio, as it was totally a simulated birth, the signature
of informant forged, and contained false entries. Catotal ask the court to declare Babiera's
certificate of birth void and ineffective, and to order the City Civil Registrar to cancel the same as
it affect the hereditary rights of Catotal who inherited the estate. Babiera countered that she and
Catotal are full-blooded sisters, as showed therein her certificate of birth, Certificate
of Baptism, and her School Report Card.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not Catotal has legal capacity to file the special proceedings pursuant to Art. 171.
(2) Whether or not the special proceeding is improper and barred by the statute of limitation.
(3) Whether or not the public record of Babiera's birth is superior to the oral testimony of Catotal.

Ruling:
(1) No. Article 171 is not applicable in this case. Article 171 of the Family Code shows that it
applies to instances which the father impugns the legitimacy of his wife's child. The provision,
however, presupposes that the child was the undisputed child of the mother. Present case alleges
and shows that the alleged mother, Hermogena, did not give birth to Babiera. The present action
does not impugn Babiera's Bliation to Eugenio and Hermogena, be there is no blood relation to
impugn in the first place. The reason why Catotal took interest on Babiera's status is to
protect the former's successional rights.

(2) No. Article 170 of the FC does not apply. The provision provides a prescriptive period for
action to impugn the legitimacy of the child. The present action involves the cancellation of
Babiera's Birth Certificate, it does not impugn her legitimacy. The action to nullify the birth
certiBcate does not prescribe because it was allegedly declared void ab initio.

(3) No. The specific attendant in the case at bar and the totality of the evidence presented during
trial, sufficiently negates the presumption of regularity in the issuance of birth certificate. First,
the birth certificate was not signed by the local civil registrar, and the mother's signature was
different from other signatures. Second, no medical records or doctor's prescription that provide
as evidence of Hermogena's pregnancy. It was impossible for her to have given birth at 54 years
of age. Third, the disposition of Hermogena which states that she did not give birth to Teofista and
that the latter was not hers of Eugenio.