Barco vs CA

Barco vs CA Date: January 20, 2004 Petitioner: Petitioner: Milagros Barco as natural guardian of Mary Joy Ann Gustilo Resondents: CA, R!C, "CJR, #ocal Civil Registrar of Ma$ati and "adina Maravilla Ponente: !inga %acts: &n '()0, "adina Maravilla *arried %rancisco Maravilla+ &n '()), te souses lived searately and in '()- tey o.tained o .tained an ecclesiastical annul*ent of+ of+ /n ( June '()-, "adina gave .irt to a daugter na*ed June alvacion in Ma$ati+ June1s .irt certicate listed %rancisco as te fater, and Maravilla as te cild1s surna*e+ 3oever, "adina su.se5uently clai*ed tat all along, te real fater of er cild as Ar*ando Gustilo, a for*er Congress*an it o* se *aintained a relationsi+ relationsi+ Gustilo as *arried to Consuelo Caraycong, o ould later eris in te M6 Don Juan naval accident+ &n'(-2, "adina and Gustilo ere *arried in te 7+ /n '2 Marc '(-8, "adina aarently as a.le to o.tain a 9udicial declaration annulling er *arriage to %rancisco+ &n '(-, "adina led in er on na*e a Petition Petition for Correction of ;ntries in te Birt Certicate of June it te R!C R!C of Ma$ati+ e clai*ed tat Gustilo as te real fater of  June+ "ota.ly, %rancisco %rancisco a<=ed a<=ed is signature signature to te Petition Petition signifying signifying is confor*ity confor*ity tereto+ Gustilo led a >Constancia,> erein e ac$noledged June as is daugter it "adina, and tat e as osing no o.9ection to "adina1s " adina1s etition+  !e R!C R!C issued issued an order order setting tecase tecase for earing and directing directing te u.lication of te order+ "adina led an A*ended Petition, tis ti*e i*leading %rancisco and Gustilo as resondents+ resondents+ !e /G led an M!D on te ground tat te R!C R!C >ad no 9urisdiction over te su.9ect *atter and?or te nature of t@e suit+ !ey clai*ed tat te canges >are su.stantial and controversial in caracter ic directly aect te liation and legiti*acy of etitioner1s etitioner 1s daugter+> !e R!C R!C denied te M!D+ &n '(-8, te R!C R!C granted te etition and ordered te corrections to .e eected+ !e R!C considered te clai* of "adina tat se ad relied co*letely on er uncle illia* R+ 6eto'E to facilitate te  rearation of June1s .irt certicate, tat it as troug is inadvertence tat te *ista$en entries ere *ade, and tat se as in intense ysical disco*fort en se ad a<=ed er signature to te .irt certicate containing te incorrect incorrect entries+ Gustilo died in '(-E+ !o estate roceedings arose fro* is deat, one lodged in Ma$ati, te oter in !e=as+ A*ong te articiants in .ot estate roceedings as Jose 6icente Gustilo, allegedly allegedly a .iological cild of Gustilo+ 3e led it te CA a etition see$ing te annul*ent of te R!C R!C /rder ic ad eected canges in te civil status of June+ Jose 6icente i*leaded "adina as an indisensa.le arty arty++ &n er Co**ent, "adina countered tat Jose 6icente ad not sute surviving souse, "adina G+ Gustilo, te daugter, June alvacion G+ Gustilo, te son, Jose 6icente Gustilo &&&, and anoter daugter, Mary Joy Ann Gustilo+> 3oever, tis co*ro*ise agree*ent as su.se5uently su.se5uently voided on etition .y Jose 6icente to te CA, on te ground tat te Civil Code roi.ited co*ro*ise as to te civil status of ersons+  Milagros Barco, in '((4, , a Motion for &ntervention it a Co*laintFinF&ntervention attaced tereto+ Barco alleged tat Mary Joy ad a legal interest in te annul*ent of te R!C /rder as se as li$eise fatered .y Gustilo+ &n er Co*laintFinF&ntervention, Barco clai*ed tat se and Gustilo ad *aintained a relationsi since '(E), and to te* as .orn Mary Joy in '())+ Barco also alleged tat se actually *oved in it Gustilo after te deat of te latter1s ife in '(-0, and *aintained er aair it Gustilo until '(-, en se as urortedly sulanted .y "adina as Gustilo1s co**onFla co*anion after Gustilo ad .eco*e gravely ill+  !e CA dis*issed dis*issed .ot te etition and co*laint co*laint in intervention+ intervention+ &t eld tat tat neiter  Jose 6icente 6icente nor Barco Barco ere a.le to esta.lis te te e=istence e=istence of lac$ of 9urisdiction 9urisdiction and

e=trinsic fraud, te to grounds tat ould 9ustify te annul*ent of a nal 9udg*ent+ &t ruled tat ile Jose 6icente and Barco ad not .een *ade arties in te Petition for Correction+  !e u.lication of te /rder conferred uon te R!C te 9urisdiction to try and decide te case+ &t also found no *erit in Jose 6icente1s clai* tat e learned of te R!C /rder only in "ove*.er of '((2, ointing out tat as early as '(-), e led a leading it te intestate court alleging tat June1s .irt certicate ad .een a*ended to record te na*e of er true fater+ Action to Annul Judgment:  !e recourse is e5uita.le in caracter, alloed only in e=cetional cases, as ere tere is no availa.le or oter ade5uate re*edy+ Annul*ent of  9udg*ents is a re*edy long autoried and sanctioned in our 9urisdiction+ As far .ac$ as '('-, tis Court in Banco ;saHolF%iliino v+ Palanca recognied te availa.ility of a direct attac$ of a nal 9udg*ent on te ground tat it is void for ant of 9urisdiction+ &n Reyes v+ Datu e eld tat te validity of a nal 9udg*ent or order of te court *ay .e attac$ed only .y a direct action or roceeding or .y *otion in anoter case on te ground of lac$ of  9urisdiction+  Iet, it as only in te '(() Rules tat te rocedure for te annul*ent of 9udg*ents or nal orders and resolutions in civil cases of R!Cs, troug a etition .efore te CA, as for*ally rovided+ Rule 4) under ic te rocedure as integrated incororates settled  9urisrudence on annul*ent of 9udg*ent+ tatutory .asis for te re*edy as laid ay .ac$ in '(-0, it te enact*ent of BP '2(+ ection ( tereof vests in te CA e=clusive original  9urisdiction over actions for annul*ent of 9udg*ents of te loer courts+ ection 2, Rule 4) e=licitly rovides only to grounds for annul*ent of 9udg*ent, na*ely: e=trinsic fraud and lac$ of 9urisdiction+ !is e=ress li*itation is signicant since revious 9urisrudence recognied oter grounds as ell+ !e underlying reason is tracea.le to te notion tat annulling nal 9udg*ents goes against te grain of nality of 9udg*ent+ #itigation *ust end and ter*inate so*eti*e and so*eere, and it is essential to a n eective ad*inistration of 9ustice tat once a 9udg*ent as .eco*e nal te issue or cause involved terein sould .e laid to rest+ !e .asic rule of nality of 9udg*ent is grounded on te funda*ental rincile of u.lic olicy and sound ractice tat at te ris$ of occasional error, te 9udg*ent of courts and te aard of 5uasiF9udicial agencies *ust .eco*e nal at so*e denite date =ed .y la+ ;ven if te rule on annul*ent of 9udg*ent is grounded on e5uity, te relief is of an e=traordinary caracter, and not as readily availa.le as te re*edies o.taining to a 9udg*ent tat is not yet nal+

&ssue: /" te R!C ac5uired 9urisdiction over te arties 3eld: Ies Ratio: !e essential re5uisite for alloing su.stantial corrections of entries in te civil registry is tat te true facts .e esta.lised in an aroriate adversarial roceeding+ ection , Rule '0- te civil registrar and all ersons o ave or clai* any interest ic ould .e aected tere.y sall .e *ade arties to te roceeding+K  !e CA eld tat 9urisdiction over te arties as roerly ac5uired troug te notice .y u.lication eected in confor*ity it ection 4 of Rule '0-+ Barco assails tis olding and clai*s tat te failure to i*lead er as a arty to te etition for correction derived te R!C of 9urisdiction+ 7ndou.tedly, Barco is a*ong te arties referred to in ection  of Rule '0-+ 3er interest as aected .y te etition for correction, as any 9udicial deter*ination tat June as te daugter of Ar*ando ould aect er ard1s sare in te estate of er fater+ &t cannot .e esta.lised eter "adina $ne of Mary Joy1s e=istence at te ti*e se led te etition for correction+ &ndeed, dou.t *ay alays .e cast as to eter a etitioner under Rule '0- ould $no of all te arties ose interests *ay .e aected .y te granting of a etition+ %or e=a*le, a etitioner cannot .e resu*ed to .e aare of all te legiti*ate or illegiti*ate osrings of is?er souse or ara*our+ !e fact tat "adina a*ended er

etition to i*lead %rancisco and Gustilo indicates earnest eort on er art to co*ly it ection  as 5uoted a.ove+  Iet, even toug Barco as not i*leaded in te etition, te CA correctly ointed out tat te defect as cured .y co*liance it ection 4, Rule '0-, ic re5uires notice .y u.lication+ !e urose recisely of ection 4, Rule '0- is to .ind te ole orld to te su.se5uent 9udg*ent on te etition+ !e see of te decision ould cover even arties o sould ave .een i*leaded under ection , Rule '0-, .ut ere inadvertently left out+ 6erily, a etition for correction is an action in re*, an action against a ting and not against a erson+4E !e decision on te etition .inds not only te arties tereto .ut te ole orld+ An in re* roceeding is validated essentially troug u.lication+ Pu.lication is notice to te ole orld tat te roceeding as for its o.9ect to .ar indenitely all o *igt .e *inded to *a$e an o.9ection of any sort against te rigt sougt to .e esta.lised+ &t is te u.lication of suc notice tat .rings in te ole orld as a arty in te case and vests te court it 9urisdiction to ear a nd decide it+ &ssue: /" te R!C ac5uired 9urisdiction over "adina1s cause of action 3eld: Ies Ratio: &t sould .e e*asied tat 9urisdiction over te nature of te action or te su.9ect *atter is conferred .y la+ !e 5uestion of eter a court as 9urisdiction over te su.9ect *atter can .e ansered si*ly .y deter*ining if on te .asis of te co*laint or etition te court as, under te la, te oer to ear and decide te case+ Barco1s re*aining argu*ents are to .e tested against tis standard+ /ne of Barco1s stri$ing assertions is tat te general rule still is tat te 9urisdiction of  te court in te correction of entries in te civil register is li*ited to innocuous or clerical *ista$es, as at se insinuates as te aarent contrary olding in Reu.lic v+ 6alencia alies only to citiensi cases+ ince te ro*ulgation of te 6alencia ruling in '(-E te Court as reeatedly ruled tat even su.stantial errors in a civil registry *ay .e corrected troug a etition led under Rule '0-, it te true facts esta.lised and te arties aggrieved .y te error availing te*selves of te aroriate adversarial roceeding+ Barco, .y see$ing to li*it te alication of te 6alencia doctrine to citiensi cases, is Logging a dead orse+  !e erroneous doctrine as traced .ac$ to te '(84 case of !y ong !in v+ Reu.lic+  !e La in !y ong !in lies in its teory tat Article 4'2 conte*lates a su**ary rocedure+ %irst of all, Article 4'2 is a su.stantive la tat rovides as follos: >"o entry in a civil register sall .e canged or corrected, itout a 9udicial order+> &t does not rovide for a secic rocedure of la to .e folloed e=cet to say tat te corrections or canges *ust .e eected .y 9udicial order+ As suc, it cannot .e gleaned terefro* tat te rocedure conte*lated for o.taining suc 9udicial order is su**ary in nature+ econdly, it is i*ortant to note tat Article 4'2 uses .ot te ter*s >corrected> and >canged+> &n its ordinary sense, to correct *eans >to *a$e or set rigtN> >to re*ove te faults or errors fro*> ile to cange *eans >to relace so*eting it so*eting else of te sa*e $ind or it so*eting tat serves as a su.stitute>+ !e rovision neiter 5ualies as to te $ind of entry to .e canged or corrected nor does it distinguis on te .asis of te eect tat te correction or cange *ay ave+ 3ence, it is roer to conclude tat all entries in te civil register *ay .e canged or corrected under Article 4'2+ at are te entries in te civil registerO e need not go furter tan Articles 40) and 40- of te sa*e title to nd te anser+ &t is .eyond dou.t tat te secic *atters covered .y te receding rovisions include not only status .ut also nationality+ !erefore, te !y ong !in ronounce*ent tat Article 4'2 does not conte*late *atters tat *ay aect civil status, nationality or citiensi is erroneous+ !is interretation as te eect of isolating Article 4'2 fro* te rest of te articles in !itle 6&, Boo$ & of te "e Civil Code, in clear contravention of te rule of statutory construction tat a statute *ust alays .e construed as a ole suc tat te

articular *eaning to .e attaced to any ord or rase is ascertained fro* te conte=t and te nature of te su.9ect treated+8( #ee also oints out tat RA (04-, enacted in 200', as eectively canged te nature of a roceeding under Rule '0-+ 7nder tis ne la, >clerical or tyograical errors and cange of rst na*e or nic$na*e> *ay no .e corrected or canged .y te concerned city or *unicial registrar or consul general, itout need of any 9udicial order+ !e o.vious eect is to re*ove fro* te a*.it of Rule '0- te correction or canging of suc errors in entries of te civil register+ 3ence, at is left for te scoe of oeration of Rule '0- are su.stantial canges and corrections in entries of te civil register+ RA (04- *ay not nd alication in tis case, yet it is clearly anoter indiciu* of o entrenced te 6alencia ruling is today+ it te enact*ent of te la, te legislature ac$noledged te otency of te ruling+ !o reeat, su.stantial corrections to te civil status of ersons recorded in te civil registry *ay .e eected troug te ling of a etition under Rule '0-+ Any furter atte*t to li*it te scoe of alication of Rule '0- runs against te all of 9udicial recedent ce*ented .y legislative aJune alvacion Maravilla> to >June alvacion Gustilo+> %olloing te trial court1s deter*ination tat Gustilo as te fater of June, .ut rescinding fro* te conclusive resu*tion of legiti*acy for te nonce assu*ing it could .e done, te cild

ould o.viously .e illegiti*ate+ !e alica.le las *andate tat June, as an illegiti*ate cild, sould .ear te surna*e of er *oter, and not te fater+E- %ro* anoter ersective, te R!C1s error in ordering te cange of na*e is *erely an error in te e=ercise of 9urisdiction ic neiter aects te court1s 9urisdiction over "adina1s etition nor constitutes a ground for te annul*ent of a nal 9udg*ent+ As te se*inal case of 3errera v+ Barretto e=lains: === Jurisdiction sould terefore .e distinguised fro* te e=ercise of 9urisdiction+ !e autority to decide a cause at all, and not te decision rendered terein, is at *a$es u 9urisdiction+ ere tere is 9urisdiction of te erson and su.9ect *atter === te decision of all oter 5uestions arising in te case is .ut an e=ercise of tat  9urisdiction+ &n te sa*e vein, it is of no *o*ent tat te R!C /rder contravenes te legal resu*tion accorded June of .eing te legiti*ate cild of %rancisco and "adina+ A revie of  te records does indicate te insu