TITLE X. EMANCIPATION (1)
G.R. No. 197174. September 10, 2014.* FRANCLER P. ONDE, peoner, vs. !E OFF"CE OF !E LOCAL C"#"L REG"SRAR OF LAS P"$AS C"%, “Correctng he enry on pettoner’s birh certfcae ha his parens were married on December 23, 193 in !ico" o “no married# is a s$bsanta" correcton re%$iring adversaria" proceedings# “&he remedy and he proceedings reg$"atng change o' frs frs name are primari"y adminisratve in na$re, no ($dicia") &he "aw removed 'rom he ambi o' *$"e 1+ o' he *$"es o' Co$r he correcton o' c"erica" or ypographica" errors.#
FACTS :Petitione :Petitionerr filed filed a petition petition for correction correction of entries entries in his certificat certificatee of live birth birth before the RTC RTC and named Office Office of the Local Civil Civil Registrar Registrar of Las Las Piñas City City as sole respondent. respondent. Petitioner alleged that he is the illegitimate child of his parents Guillermo . Onde and !atilde "e prayed that the follo#ing entries on hisbirth certificate be corrected as follo#s:
$%TR& 'RO! (ate and place of marriage of (ecember )* )*+ ,,-*/0icol his parents 'irst name of his mother Tely "is first name 'ranc Ler
TO %ot ma married !atilde 'rancler
RTC dismissed the petition for correction of entries on the ground that it is insufficient in form and substance. 1t #as further held that the correction in the first name of petitioner and his mother can be done by the city civil registrar under Republic ct 2R..3 %o. -45+ entitled n ct uthori6ing uthori6ing the City or !unicipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct a Clerical or Typographical $rror in an $ntry and7or Change of 'irst %ame or %ic8name in the Civil Registrar 9ithout %eed of a udicial Order+ mending for this Purpose rticles *;< and 5,) of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The RTC denied petitioner=s motion for reconsideration+ as it found no proof that petitioner=s parents #ere not married on (ecember )*+ ,-*. "o#ever petitioner argues that Rule ,4 of the Rules of Court allo#s a substantial correction of entries in the civil registry "e li8e#ise adds that proof that his parents #ere not married #ill be presented during the trial+ not during the filing of the petition for correction of entries. The O>G in its comment +it points out that the first names of petitioner and his mother can be corrected thru administrative proceedings under R.. %o. -45. >uch correction of the entry on petitioner=s birth certificate that his parents #ere married on (ecember )*+ ,-* in 0icol to ?not married@ is a substantial correction affecting his legitimacy. "ence+ it must be dealt #ith in adversarial proceedings #here all interested parties are impleaded. Issue/s:Whether the RTC erred when t !"nts "ut th#t the $rst n#%es "$ !ett"ner #nd hs %"ther %"ther n 'e &"rre&te &"rre&ted d thru #d%nstr# #d%nstr#te te !r"&eedn !r"&eedns s unde underr R.A. N". *+,-#nd *+,-#nd n
run th#t &"rre&tn the entr0 "n !ett"ners 'rth &ert$te th#t hs !#rents were %#rred "n 2e&e%'er 34 1*-4 n 5&" t" 6n"t %#rred7 s su'st#nt# n n#ture re8urn #ders#r# !r"&eedns9
EL2:On the first issue+ #e agree #ith the RTC that the first name of petitioner and his mother as appearing in his birth certificate can be corrected by the city civil registrar under R.. %o. -45 under >ection ,A of R.. %o. -45+ clerical or typographical errors on entries in a civil register can be corrected and changes of first name can be done by the concerned city civil registrar #ithout need of a Budicial order. foresaid >ection ,+ as amended by R.. %o. ,4,;).
On the second issue+ #e also agree #ith the RTC in ruling that correcting the entry on petitioner=s birth certificate that his parents #ere married on (ecember )*+ ,-* in 0icol to ?not married@ is a substantial correction reuiring adversarial proceedings. >aid correction is substantial as it #ill affect his legitimacy and convert him from a legitimate child to an ille gitimate one. 1n Republic v. Uy+ #e held that corrections of entries in the civil register including those on citi6enship+ legitimacy of paternity or filiation+ or legitimacy of marriage+ involve substantial alterations. >ubstantial 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 proceedings. 9e clarify+ ho#ever+ that the RTC=s dismissal is #ithout preBudice. "e can also file a ne# petition before the RTC to correct the alleged erroneous entry on his birth certificate that his parents #ere married on (ecember )*+ ,-* in 0icol. This substantial correction is allo#ed under Rule ,4 of the Rules of Court. 1t is true in the case at bar that the changes sought to be made by petitioner are not merely clerical or harmless errors but substantial ones as they #ould affect the status of the marriage bet#een petitioner and Carlos 0orbon+ as #ell as the legitimacy of their son+ Charles Christian. Petition see8ing a substantial correction of an entry in a civil register must implead as parties to the proceedings not only the local civil registrar+ as petitioner did in the dismissed petition for correction of entries+ but also all persons #ho have or claim any interest #hich #ould be affected by the correction. This is reuired by >ection *+ Rule ,4 of the Rules of Court. 1n Republic v. Uy+ #e have similarly ruled that #hen a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations+ including those on citi6enship+ legitimacy of paternity or filiation+ or legitimacy of marriage+ a strict compliance #ith the reuirements of the Rules of Court is mandated. Thus+ in his ne# petition+ petitioner should at least implead his father and mother as parties since the substantial correction he is see8ing #ill also affect them it is no longer necessary to d#ell on the last issue as petitioner #ill have his opportunity to prove his claim that his parents #ere not married on (ecember )*+ ,-* #hen he files the ne# petition for the purpose.
TITLE XI S;MMAR< =;2ICIAL PROCEE2IN>S IN TE FAMIL< LAW. CAPTER ,. OTER MATTERS (,)
>.R. N". 1-?@13. =une 14 3+13. REP;5LIC OF TE PILIPPINES !ett"ner vs.
RANA2A res!"ndent.
“Declaration of Presumptive Death; Articles 41, 238, 247 and 23 of the !amil" #ode provide that since a petition for declaration of presumptive death is a summar" proceedin$, the %ud$ment of the court therein shall &e immediatel" final and e'ecutor".( FACTS: Respondent &olanda Cadacio Granada met Cyrus Granada at >umida $lectric Philippines+ an electronics company in Parañaue #here both #ere then #or8ing. The t#o eventually got married and their marriage resulted in the birth of their son+ Cyborg (ean Cadacio Granada. Cyrus #ent to Tai#an to see8 employment. &olanda claimed that from that time+ she had not received any communication from her husband+ not#ithstanding efforts to locate him. "er brother testified that he had as8ed the relatives of Cyrus regarding the latter=s #hereabouts+ to no avail.
fter nine 2-3 years of #aiting+ &olanda filed a Petition to have Cyrus declared presumptively dead. RTC rendered a (ecision declaring Cyrus as presumptively dead 2O>G3 filed a !otion for Reconsideration of this (ecision. Petitioner argued that &olanda had failed to eDert earnest efforts to locate Cyrus and thus failed to prove her #ellfounded belief that he #as already dead. The RTC denied the motion Petitioner filed a %otice of ppeal to elevate the case to the C+ &olanda filed a !otion to (ismiss on the ground that the C had no Burisdiction over the appeal. >he argued that her Petition for (eclaration of Presumptive (eath #as a summary Budicial proceeding+ in #hich the Budgment is immediately final and eDecutory and+ thus+ not appealable. ppellate court granted &olanda=s !otion to (ismiss on the ground of lac8 of Burisdiction. ISS;E: 1. 9hether the C erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the (ecision of the RTC in asummary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and eDecutory upon notice to the parties and+ hence+ is not subBect to ordinary appeal. 3.9hether the C seriously erred in affirming the RTC=s grant of the Petition for (eclaration of Presumptive (eath under rticle 5, of the 'amily Code based on the evidence that respondent presented EL2: The C dismissed the Petition assailing the RTC=s grant of the Petition for (eclaration of Presumptive (eath of the absent spouse under rticle 5, of the 'amily Code. Citing Republic v. BermudezLorino+ the appellate court noted that a petition for declaration of presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage is a summary Budicial proceeding under the 'amily Code. "ence+ the RTC (ecision therein is immediately final and eDecutory upon notice to the parties+ by eDpress provision of rticle )5;
of the same Code. The decision is therefore not subBect to ordinary appeal+ and the attempt to uestion it through a %otice of ppeal is unavailing. Ta8en together+ rticles 5,+ )*+ )5; and )A* of the 'amily Code provide that since a petition for declaration of presumptive death is a summary proceeding+ the Budgment of the court therein shall be immediately final and eDecutory. Ender rticle 5, of the 'amily Code+ the losing party in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death may file a petition for certiorari #ith the C on the ground that+ in rendering Budgment thereon+ the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac8 of Burisdiction. 'rom the decision of the C+ the aggrieved party may elevate the matter to this Court via a petition for revie# on certiorari under Rule 5A of the Rules of Court. $vidently then+ the C did not commit any error in dismissing the Republic=s %otice of ppeal on the ground that the RTC Budgment on the Petition for (eclaration of Presumptive (eath of respondent=s spouse #as immediately final and eDecutory and+ hence+ not subBect to ordinary appeal
) The 'amily Code provision prescribes a ?#ellfounded belief@ that the absentee is already dead before a petition for declaration of presumptive death can be granted. s noted by the Court in that case+ the four reuisites for the declaration of presumptive death under the 'amily Code are as follo#s: 1. Th#t the #'sent s!"use h#s 'een %ssn $"r $"ur &"nse&ute 0e#rs "r tw" &"nse&ute 0e#rs $ the ds#!!e#r#n&e "&&urred where there s d#ner "$ de#th under the &r&u%st#n&es #d d"wn n Art&e4*1 C C"de9 3. Th#t the !resent s!"use wshes t" re%#rr09 4. Th#t the !resent s!"use h#s # we$"unded 'ee$ th#t the #'sentee s de#d9 #nd ,. Th#t the !resent s!"use $es # su%%#r0 !r"&eedn $"r the de&#r#t"n "$ !resu%!te de#th "$ the #'sentee.
Petitioner points out that respondent &olanda did not initiate a diligent search to locate her absent husband. 9hile her brother (iosdado Cadacio testified to having inuired about the #hereabouts of Cyrus from the latter=s relatives+ these relatives #ere not presented to corroborate (iosdado=s testimony. 1n short+ respondent #as allegedly not diligent in her search for her husband. Petitioner argues that if she #ere+ she #ould have sought information from the Tai#anese Consular Office or assistance from other government agencies in Tai#an or the Philippines. >he could have also utili6ed mass media for this end+ but she did not. 9orse+ she failed to eDplain these omissions. The Republic=s arguments are #ellta8en. %evertheless+ #e are constrained to deny the Petition. The RTC ruling on the issue of #hether respondent #as able to prove her ?#ellfounded belief@ that her absent spouse #as already dead prior to her filing of the Petition to declare him presumptively dead is already final and can no longer be modified or reversed. 1ndeed+ ?Fnothing is more settled in la# than that #hen a Budgment becomes final and eDecutory+ it becomes immutable and unalterable. The same may no longer be modified in any respect+ even if the modification is meant to correct #hat is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or la#.@
G.R. No. 1&10&2. '() +1, 2009.* REP-L"C OF !E P!"L"PP"NES, peoner, vs. FER#EN"NO . ANGO, repon/ent.
“The judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory !o appeal can be had of the trial court"s judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under #rticle $% of the &amily 'ode.@ FACTS: 'erventino and !aria #ere married in civil rites before then !ayor 1gnacio 0unye of !untinlupa City. %one of !aria=s relatives #itnessed the ceremony as they #ere opposed to her relationship #ith 'erventino. The t#o had only spent a night together and had been intimate once #hen !aria told 'erventino that she and her family #ill soon be leaving for the Enited >tates of merica 2E>3. !aria and her family fle# to >eattle+ E> 'erventino alleges that !aria 8ept in touch for a year before she stopped responding to his letters. Out of resentment+ he burned all the letters !aria #rote him. "e claims to have forgotten her address since. 'erventino recounts the efforts he made to find !aria. Epon inuiry from the latter=s uncle+ ntonio Ledesma+ in Las Piñas+ 'erventino learned that even !aria=s relatives #ere una#are of her #hereabouts. "e also solicited the assistance of a friend in TeDas+ Capt. Luis ris of the E.>. ir 'orce+ but to no avail. 'inally+ he sought the aid of his parents ntonio and $usebia in Los ngeles+ and his aunt nita Castro !ayor in >eattle. Li8e+ Ledesma though+ their attempts to find !aria proved fruitless. The neDt ,5 years #ent by #ithout any ne#s of !aria.
'erventino filed a verified for the declaration of presumptive death of !aria #ithin the contemplation of rticle 5, of the 'amily Code+ Budgment is hereby rendered+ declaring !R1 O>$ . 1LLR0+ #ife of '$R$%T1%O E. T%GO+ presumptively dead #ithin the meaning of rticle 5, of the 'amily Code. 2O>G3+ for the Republic+ to file a %otice of ppeal Court of ppeals+ treating the case as an ordinary appealed case under Rule 5, of the Rules of Court+ affirmed the RTC=s Order 1t held that !aria=s absence for ,5 years #ith out information about her location despite diligent search by 'erventino #as sufficient to support a #ellfounded belief of her death. Court of ppeals denied the Republic=s appeal ISS;E: 9hether the declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and eDecutory upon notice to the parties and+ hence+ is not subBect to appeal. EL2: s a matter of course+ it follo#s that no appeal can be had of the trial court=s Budgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under rticle 5, of the 'amily Code. 1t goes #ithout saying+ ho#ever+ that an aggrieved party may file a petition for cer tiorari to uestion abuse of discretion amounting to lac8 of Burisdiction. >uch petition should be filed in the Court of ppeals in accordance #ith the (octrine of "ierarchy of Courts. 1n the case before us+ petitioner
committed a serious procedural lapse #hen it filed a notice of appeal in the Court of ppeals instead of a petition for certiorari. The RTC eually erred in giving due course to said appeal and ordering the transmittal of the records of the case to the appellate court. 0y no means did the Court of ppeals acuire Burisdiction to revie# the Budgment of the RTC #hich+ by eDpress provision of la#+ #as immediately final and eDecutory. dding to the confusion+ the Court of ppeals entertained the appeal and treated the same as an ordinary appeal under Rule 5, of the Rules of Court. s it #ere+ the Court of ppeals committed grave reversible error #hen it failed to dismiss the erroneous appeal of the Republic on the ground of lac8 of Burisdiction because+ by eDpress provision of the la#+ the Budgment #as not appealable