May entries in the birth certificate of a child regarding his or her filiation or legitimacy be corrected in a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court?
Let us say, by way of illustration, that A and B are the legitimate children of F (father) and M (mother). They discover that C is claiming to be the illegitimate child of F and his mistress X and is brandishing a birth certificate indicating his parents as F and X. A and B claim that their father has no child outside of wedlock and that F’s signature in the birth certificate of C was forged by X. May A and B file a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 to delete the entry regarding F’s paternity?
The current case law is to the effect that A and B may not file such a petition. The Supreme Court en banc in Ordoña v. Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City (9 November 2021) categorically held that the legitimacy and filiation of children cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108. The Supreme Court cited the case of Braza v. City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, 607 SCRA 638 (2009), as reiterated in Miller v. Miller, 915 SCRA 286 (2019), in support of its ruling. In effect, these cases hold that legitimacy and filiation can be threshed out only in an “action” directly instituted for that purpose. Thus, A and B must first file an “action” to impugn the filiation of C and only after a favorable judgment is rendered in their favor may they file the petition for correction of entry under Rule 108.
It is submitted that the rulings in Braza, Miller, and Ordoña be revisited and that the better approach is to allow a court in a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 to pass upon issues regarding the legitimacy or filiation of a child in line with the policy of avoiding multiplicity of suits and improving access to the courts.
Pre-Valencia doctrine
Prior to the 1986 case of Republic v. Valencia, the doctrine was that corrections of entries involving the legitimacy or filiation of a child cannot be made in a Rule 108 proceeding since Rule 108 was limited to the correction of innocuous or clerical errors (Go v. Civil Registrar of Malabon, 31 May 1971; Republic v. De la Cruz, 2 November 1982; Rosales v. Rosales, 28 September 1984).
Republic v. Valencia (1986)
The leading case which held that legitimacy and filiation may be threshed out in a Rule 108 proceeding was Republic v. Valencia, 141 SCRA 462 (1986). The facts of the case are as follows:
Respondent Leonor Valencia, for and on behalf of her minor children Bernardo Go and Jessica Go, filed with the CFI of Cebu a petition for the cancellation and/or correction of entries of birth of Bernardo Go and Jessica Go in the Civil Registry of the City of Cebu.
Subsequently, the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City filed a motion to dismiss. The LCR pointed out that the petition sought to change the nationality or citizenship of Bernardo Go and Jessica Go from “Chinese” to “Filipino” and their status from “Legitimate” to “Illegitimate” and changing also the status of the mother from “married” to “single.” The LCR argued that since the corrections sought are not merely clerical but substantial, involving as they do the citizenship and status of the petitioning minors and the status of their mother, then such changes cannot be made in a Rule 108 proceeding.
The Supreme Court ruled that the motion to dismiss was without merit. The Court in a landmark ruling held that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding by impleading and notifying the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim an interest that may be affected by the proceedings.
The Valencia ruling ossified into canonical doctrine and was thereafter followed in several cases, such as Lee v. Court of Appeals, 367 SCRA 110 (2001). In Lee, the petitioners, who were the legitimate children of AA and BB, filed a petition for cancellation or correction of the entries in the birth certificates of the respondents who were the illegitimate children of AA and his concubine CC. The petition sought to change the entry in the name of the mother of the respondents from BB to CC. The Supreme Court citing Republic v. Valencia ruled that changes involving legitimacy or status may be effected under Rule 108 provided that the proper adversarial proceedings were conducted.
Braza v. City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City (2009)
The foundations of the Valencia doctrine were however shaken to their core in 2009 by the case of Braza v. City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, 607 SCRA 638. The facts of Braza are as follows:
After the death of her husband Pablo Braza, Cristina came to know that Lucille Titular was introducing to society Patrick Alvin as her (Lucille’s) and Pablo’s son. Cristina’s inquiry revealed that Patrick Alvin’s birth certificate stated that he was legitimated by subsequent marriage between Pablo and Lucille and that the birth certificate indicates his name as Patrick Alvin Titular Braza. Contending that Patrick could not have been legitimated by the supposed marriage between Lucille and Pablo, said marriage being bigamous on account of the then valid and subsisting marriage between Cristina and Pablo, Cristina and her children filed with the RTC a petition under Rule 108 to correct the entries in the birth record of Patrick.
In their petition, they prayed for (1) the correction of the entries in Patrick’s birth record with respect to his legitimation, the name of the father and his acknowledgment, and the use of the last name “Braza”; (2) a directive to Leon, Cecilia and Lucille, all surnamed Titular, as guardians of the minor Patrick, to submit Patrick to DNA testing to determine his paternity and filiation; and (3) the declaration of nullity of the legitimation of Patrick as stated in his birth certificate and, for this purpose, the declaration of the marriage of Lucille and Pablo as bigamous.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the petition. The Court held that in a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108, a trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and to rule on legitimacy and filiation. Petitioners’ insistence that the main cause of action was for the correction of Patrick’s birth records and that the rest of the prayers were merely incidental thereto is untenable. The petitioners’ cause of action is actually to seek the declaration of Pablo and Lucille’s marriage as void for being bigamous and impugn Patrick’s legitimacy, which causes of action are governed not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which took effect on March 15, 2003, and Art. 171 of the Family Code, respectively. Hence, the petition should be filed in a Family Court as expressly provided in said Code.
The Braza holding that a court cannot rule on legitimacy or filiation in a Rule 108 proceeding was reiterated in the 2019 case of Miller v. Miller, 915 SCRA 286. John Miller (John) and Beatriz Marcaida were legally married. They bore four children, including petitioner Glenn M. Miller (Glenn). After John’s death, respondent Joan Miller (Joan), through her mother Lennie Espenida (Lennie), filed before the RTC a petition for partition and accounting of John’s estate. Alleging that she is John’s illegitimate child with Lennie, Joan presented her Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) which showed John to be her registered father.
Glenn filed a separate petition under Rule 108 praying that Joan’s COLB be cancelled. He also prayed that the LCR be directed to replace Joan’s surname, Miller, with Espenida. Glenn claimed that John did not acknowledge Joan as a natural child, pointing out that John’s signature was not in her birth certificate. It was also not shown that John knew and consented that his name would be indicated in the certificate.
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. Citing Braza, the Court held that legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through a collateral attack under Rule 108. Impugning the legitimacy and filiation of a child is governed by Articles 170 and 171 of the Family Code, not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The SC dismissed the petition without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate action before the proper court.
Santiago v. Jornacion (October 2021)
In October 2021, however, the Supreme Court rendered a decision which did not hew to Braza and Miller but followed Valencia. The facts of Santiago v. Jornacion, G.R. No. 230049, 6 October 2021, are as follows:
In 2013, Bernie Santiago filed a petition under Rule 108 with the RTC of Marikina City which sought to establish his paternity with Sofia and to have the City Civil Registrar of Marikina City correct entries in Sofia’s Birth Certificate, wherein Sofia’s surname was indicated as Jornacion.
Bernie claimed to be the biological father of Sofia. He averred that Sofia was the fruit of his romantic relationship with Magdalena Gabutin (Magdalena). When Sofia was born in 2001, Magdalena was still married to – although separated in fact from – respondent Rommel C. Jornacion (Rommel). Since Magdalena was still legally married to Rommel and to save Magdalena from shame, Rommel was registered as Sofia’s father. Thus, Sofia’s last name was registered as Jornacion.
The Republic filed an opposition which sought to dismiss the petition based on the ground, inter alia, that Sofia’s legitimacy cannot be assailed through a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108. The RTC dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal invoking the Braza holding.
The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the petition. The Court stated that the propriety of a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court to establish a child’s filiation is not a novel concept. The Court cited Lee v. Court of Appeals, which clarified that “Rule 108, when all the procedural requirements thereunder are followed, is the appropriate adversary proceeding to effect substantial corrections and changes in the entries of the civil register.” The Court pointed out that as regards the propriety of a petition under Rule 108 in cases involving the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, Lee overturned the previous ruling in Republic v. Labrador, 364 Phil. 934 [1999] which erroneously held that “Rule 108 cannot be used to modify, alter or increase substantive rights, such as those involving the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child.”
Santiago made no mention of Braza in its holding let alone attempt to distinguish its holding from that of Braza. It is apparent however that the Santiago ruling that a court can rule upon filiation or legitimation in a Rule 108 proceeding is the polar opposite of that of Braza and Miller while being consistent with the ruling in Republic v. Valencia. Santiago thus threw its lot with the Valencia camp rather than the Braza camp.
Ordoña v. LCR of Pasig City (November 2021)
Doubts arising from the divergent rulings on whether a court may rule upon legitimacy or filiation in a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 were laid to rest by the High Court in the en banc case of Ordoña v. Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City, G.R. No. 215370, 9 November 2021. The facts thereof are as follows:
Ms. R.B. Ordoña (petitioner) was married to Mr. Libut in 2000 in Las Piñas City. In December 2005, petitioner went to Qatar for work until 2008 when she discovered that Libut had an illicit relationship. This prompted her to return to the Philippines and separate from him. Despite their separation, petitioner has not yet filed a petition for annulment of her marriage to Libut.
In April 2008, petitioner applied for another work in Abu Dhabi, UAE, where she met Mr. Fulgueras. She and Fulgueras had an intimate relationship which resulted in petitioner’s pregnancy with Fulgueras as the purported father. Thus, petitioner went back to the Philippines sometime in September 2009. In January 2010, petitioner gave birth to a son in a hospital in Pasig City. In the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), the child was given the name “Alrich Paul Ordoña Fulgueras” with Fulgueras as the purported father.
In September 2011, petitioner filed before the RTC a Rule 108 petition seeking the following corrections: (1) change of last name of Alrich Paul in Item No. 1 from “Fulgueras” to “Ordoña,” petitioner’s maiden name; and (2) deletion of entries in the paternal information pertaining to Fulgueras. She alleged that it was not Fulgueras who signed the Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity attached to the COLB considering that Fulgueras was not in the Philippines when she gave birth to Alrich Paul.
The Supreme Court held that the petition should be dismissed. The Court ruled that Petitioner’s collateral attack on Alrich Paul’s filiation cannot be allowed in a Rule 108 proceeding. The Supreme Court, invoking Braza and Miller, categorically held that the legitimacy and filiation of children cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for correction of entries in the certificate of live birth under Rule 108.[1]
A plea to revisit the Braza doctrine
It is respectfully submitted that the Braza doctrine, as adopted in Ordoña, be revisited and that a better approach is to allow a court in a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 to pass upon the legitimacy or filiation of a child in line with the policy of avoiding multiplicity of suits and improving access to the courts.
The Braza doctrine should be limited to the holding that a trial court in a Rule 108 proceeding has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages. This portion of the ruling stands on solid footing because jurisdiction over petitions for nullification of marriage is vested in the family courts and there is a special procedure (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) governing such petitions. The holding that a court in a Rule 108 proceeding cannot pass upon legitimacy or filiation should be understood in the factual context of Braza, i.e., a ruling that Patrick was illegitimate would be a necessary offshoot of the declaration of nullity of his parents’ marriage. Clearly, passing upon such an issue in the Rule 108 proceeding would amount to a proscribed collateral attack on the marriage. Unfortunately, this portion of the Braza doctrine took on a life of its own and morphed into a stand-alone doctrine that legitimacy or filiation cannot be threshed out in a Rule 108 proceeding even in cases where the validity of a marriage was not in issue.[2]
Braza, Miller, and Ordoña hold that issues regarding legitimacy or filiation should be threshed out in an “action” directly instituted for such purpose. The use of the term “action” (doubtless influenced by the term being referenced in Articles 170 and 171 of the Family Code) is an imprecision. A case seeking to establish or impugn filiation or legitimacy is not an action but a special proceeding.[3] A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (Sec. 3[c], Rule 1, Rules of Court). The special proceeding under Rule 108 is in fact an appropriate remedy to establish the status, i.e., the legitimacy or filiation, of a child.
Thus, instead of filing first an “action” to establish or impugn legitimacy or filiation, and then filing another case for correction or cancellation of entry under Rule 108, an interested party should be able to file at once the petition under Rule 108 wherein he can seek a determination of legitimacy or filiation. This would be similar to the procedure in recognition of foreign divorce decree wherein the recognition may be sought for in the Rule 108 proceeding itself.[4] Reverting to the Valencia doctrine would avoid multiplicity of suits, lessen the cost of litigation, and improve access to the courts.
-oOo-
[1] The Court also said that the petitioner is barred from impugning the legitimacy of her child pursuant to Article 167 of the Family Code. The Court also noted that the petition did not implead Mr. Libut who is an indispensable party. A perusal of Ordoña shows that these pronouncements were merely obiter.
[2] This is aside from the consideration that a doctrine laid down by the Court may be reversed or modified only by the Court sitting en banc (Section 4[3], Article VIII of the Constitution).
[3] See the dissenting opinion of Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier in Ordoña.
[4] Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 628 SCRA 266 (2010).
Thank you for this topic, Atty. I hope this new ruling won’t affect my petition for correction of entry in the COLB and subsequent legitimation of the child and that the Honorable court will grant the petition taking into consideration the idea of avoiding multiplicity of suits and/or the Valencia ruling.