Alisoso v. Lastimoso
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Dr. Policarpo C. Alisoso, a physician, sought to have his name removed as the recorded father of Leonilo Lastimoso from the birth registry. The petition stemmed from a birth entry made by Lucila O. Lastimoso, falsely identifying Dr. Alisoso as the father of Leonilo, a child born to Tarcela Lastimoso. Dr. Alisoso asserted he was never married to Tarcela Lastimoso and was, in fact, married to another woman, Irenea Hermosisima, since 1951. Church records also listed the father of Leonilo as unknown. 2. Procedural History: Dr. Alisoso filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Cebu to correct the birth record. The respondents, represented by the Solicitor General, moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the requested correction was not a mere clerical error as defined by Article 412 of the Civil Code, but a substantial change affecting paternity and filiation. The trial court granted the petition, ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Pinamungajan to strike Dr. Alisoso's name and record the father as unknown. The government appealed this decision. 3. The Petition: The government's appeal, acting as the petition before this Court, argued that the lower court erred in allowing the correction of the birth record. The core of the government's argument, relying on previous Supreme Court rulings, was that Article 412 of the Civil Code only permits corrections of clerical mistakes, not substantial changes affecting civil status, nationality, or citizenship. The government contended that altering paternity falls under substantial changes requiring a more formal legal proceeding. The Court, however, found the facts parallel to the Roces v. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila case, where an unauthorized and false entry regarding paternity was deemed void and subject to cancellation or correction.
Issue(s)
Whether the correction sought, which affects paternity and filiation, constitutes a mere clerical error contemplated under Article 412 of the Civil Code. Whether the court a quo erred in ordering the Local Civil Registrar to strike out the petitioner's name as the father and state in lieu thereof that the father is unknown.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the court a quo, directing the Local Civil Registrar of Pinamungajan to strike out the name of petitioner Dr. Policarpio C. Alisoso as the alleged father of minor Leonilo Lastimoso and to state in lieu thereof that his father is unknown. The Court found the facts obtaining in this case to be parallel to those in Roces v. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the correction sought constitutes a mere clerical error under Article 412 of the Civil Code: The Court held that while Article 412 of the Civil Code generally pertains to clerical errors, the peculiar and undisputed facts of this case warranted a different approach. The facts established that the petitioner was not the father of the child and had no amorous relations with the mother, Tarcela Lastimoso. Furthermore, the person who reported the false entry, Lucila O. Lastimoso, was without authority to do so. These circumstances, particularly the falsity of the entry and the lack of authority of the reporting party, rendered the entry void ab initio. The Court, drawing an analogy from the Roces v. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila case, found that such a false and unauthorized entry, even if it affects paternity, should be corrected or deleted. The Court reiterated the principle that Article 412 authorizes only harmless and innocuous changes, but distinguished this case by emphasizing the undisputed falsity and lack of authority, making the entry itself unlawful and thus subject to correction. The Court agreed with the court a quo that the entry, being false and made without proper authority, should be corrected or deleted, aligning with the ruling in Roces where an entry made without the alleged father's signature was deemed a violation of law and thus null and void. On the issue of whether the court a quo erred in ordering the correction: The Court found no reversible error in the decision of the court a quo. The undisputed facts presented a situation where a false entry of paternity was made in the civil registry without the knowledge or consent of the alleged father and by an unauthorized person. The Court found the facts parallel to those in Roces v. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila, where a similar petition to correct a birth certificate was granted. In Roces, the Court held that an entry of paternity made without the alleged father's signature was an open violation of the law and that the local civil registrar had no authority to incorporate such unlawful statements, rendering the entry null and void. Given the parallel factual circumstances and the established principle that false and unauthorized entries should be corrected, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court. The Court concluded that the entry concerning the paternity of Leonilo Lastimoso was false and should be corrected or deleted, as ordered by the court a quo.
Main Doctrine
A petition for the correction of a birth record to strike out the name of an alleged father, when supported by undisputed facts showing the falsity of the entry and the lack of authority of the person who made the report, may be granted under Article 412 of the Civil Code, even if it involves a substantial change affecting paternity, by analogy with cases where false entries made without proper authority are deemed null and void.