Barretto v. Local Civil Registrar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A birth record (Register No. 1167(f44)) in the civil register of Manila indicated the birth of a female child named Rosario Barretto on June 29, 1944, to spouses Faustino Barretto and King Lian. Separately, a baptismal record (Book No. IV, Folio 83) of the Parroquia de Chinos in Manila recorded the baptism of a child named Domingo Sy Barretto on May 21, 1950, born on June 29, 1944, to Faustino Sy Barretto and Diana King Luan Ty. Domingo Barretto was registered as an alien in the Bureau of Immigration on June 23, 1958, with a native-born certificate of residence stating he was lawfully entitled to remain in the Philippines. In 1967, Domingo Barretto sought a certified copy of his birth record for a marriage license application and discovered his registered name was Rosario and his sex was female, preventing him from obtaining the license. Procedural History: Domingo Barretto filed a petition for correction of entries in his birth record regarding his name and sex (Civil Case No. 69639), which was dismissed. His motion for reinstatement was denied. He then filed a second petition (September 23, 1967), later amended (December 21, 1967) to limit the correction to his sex. The Solicitor General moved to dismiss, arguing the error was not clerical and its correction involved a substantial change affecting identity. The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the amended petition, deeming the error clerical. The Petition: Domingo Barretto testified he is the same person as Rosario Barretto, that his father changed his Chinese name, and that he used the name Domingo Barretto in school and was known as such at home and in the neighborhood. His mother, King Lian, testified her son Domingo was born on June 29, 1944, and she only learned of the name Rosario from the birth certificate. Vicente Royo testified she was present at Domingo Barretto's birth and saw he was a male child. The Solicitor General appealed, contending the trial court erred in classifying the sex entry correction as clerical, arguing it was a substantial alteration potentially circumventing alien residence laws.
Issue(s)
Whether the alleged erroneous entry as to the sex of Rosario Barretto in the birth record is a clerical error that may be corrected through summary proceedings. Whether the correction of the sex entry in the birth record constitutes a substantial alteration affecting the petitioner's identity.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the order of the lower court. No costs were awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the alleged erroneous entry as to the sex of Rosario Barretto in the birth record is a clerical error that may be corrected through summary proceedings: The Court held that the petition for correction was not warranted because the alleged error was not clerical in nature. The summary procedure under Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is strictly confined to innocuous or clerical errors, such as misspellings or obvious mistakes visible on the face of the record. These corrections must be non-controversial and supported by indubitable evidence. The Court distinguished this case from one where the name and sex might be erroneously swapped, which could be considered clerical. Here, a person named Domingo Barretto claims to be Rosario Barretto, and that the recorded sex is a mistake, presenting a more complicated situation. On the issue of whether the correction of the sex entry in the birth record constitutes a substantial alteration affecting the petitioner's identity: The Court found that the alleged error in this case could not be corrected by mere reference to the record. It necessitated a determination of whether Rosario Barretto and Domingo Barretto were the same person and an inquiry into why Domingo was registered as Rosario. This process involves a controversial matter, and the petitioner's evidence was not considered indubitable. The Solicitor General's argument that the correction was a substantial alteration, potentially to circumvent laws on alien residence, was implicitly given weight by the Court's reversal of the lower court's order. The Court reiterated the definition of a clerical error as one made by a clerk in transcribing or otherwise, which must be apparent on the face of the record and correctable by reference to the record only.
Main Doctrine
The summary procedure for correction of entries in the civil registry under Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is confined to innocuous or clerical errors, such as misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, or corrections that are not controversial and are supported by indubitable evidence. A change in the sex entry in a birth record, which requires determination of identity and the reason for the discrepancy, is not a clerical error but a substantial alteration.