Malicdem v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Juan Malicdem and Saturnina Aquino sought to change the registered name of a minor, Henry Tomelden, to Henry Malicdem. They alleged that while Henry was registered as the son of Eugenia Aquino (Saturnina's sister) and Lope Tomelden due to a local belief about breaking mortality chains, Henry was their biological child and had lived with them since birth. The minor, now aware of his true parentage, wished to use his correct surname. 2. Procedural History: The petition for change of name was filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. After publication, notice, and a hearing where petitioners and Eugenia Aquino testified, the lower court found Henry to be the legitimate child of Juan Malicdem and Saturnina Aquino. Consequently, the court granted the petition, allowing the change of the minor's name from Henry Tomelden to Henry Malicdem. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, appealed the lower court's decision. The appellant contended that the lower court erred in allowing testimonial evidence to contradict the civil register entry, which listed Lope Tomelden and Eugenia Aquino as the minor's parents. The appeal argued that the civil register entry should have prevailed over the oral testimony presented by the petitioners.
Issue(s)
Whether testimonial evidence tending to establish that petitioners are the parents of the minor can override the entry in the civil register showing otherwise. Whether a petition for change of name is proper for a legitimate child to bear the surname of his legitimate father.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that entries in the civil register are only prima facie evidence and can be corrected by judicial order. The Court found no error in the lower court's factual finding that the minor is the legitimate child of the petitioners, and that the petition for change of name was not legally prohibited, as it merely confirms a legal right.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of testimonial evidence overriding the civil register: The Court held that while the civil register is an official record, its entries are only prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, as provided by Article 410 of the Civil Code. Article 412 of the Civil Code allows for the correction or cancellation of such entries in proper cases through a judicial order. In this case, the lower court, after weighing the evidence presented, found the petitioners' explanation for the discrepancy credible. Therefore, the action taken by the trial court in allowing testimonial evidence to correct the civil register entry was not erroneous. This factual finding, based on the evidence, is binding on the Supreme Court on appeal. On the propriety of the petition for change of name: The Solicitor General contended that if the minor is indeed the legitimate child of the Malicdems, the proceeding is unnecessary as a legitimate child is entitled to bear his father's surname as a matter of right. The Court dismissed this contention, citing the case of Asensi, etc. v. Republic (G. R. No. L-18047, Dec. 26, 1963). In that case, it was held that there is no legal prohibition against such a petition. While it may be considered a confirmation of a legal right, it is not against the law, customs, or morals. Therefore, the petition for change of name was a valid procedural recourse to formally align the civil registry with the true filiation and surname of the child.
Main Doctrine
Entries in the civil register are only prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, and may be corrected or cancelled by judicial order in proper cases, after weighing the evidence presented.