In re: Petition for Correction of Entry in Certificate of Birth, Sison v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Danilo Ibarra Sison and Josephine Ibarra Sison were born to Antonio Sison and Gloria Ibarra. Their birth certificates, registered on October 25, 1962, and March 30, 1964, respectively, erroneously listed their surname as "de la Cruz." This error originated from their father, Antonio Sison, who used the surname "de la Cruz" in his marriage contract with Gloria Ibarra, despite his true paternal lineage being "Sison." The children were baptized and subsequently schooled under the surname "Sison," and were known by this name among relatives and friends. Their father passed away in 1978. Procedural History: The petitioners, minors at the time, filed an Amended Petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXIV, on February 6, 1979, seeking to correct their surnames from "de la Cruz" to "Sison" in their birth records. The court set a hearing, and notice was published and served on the Solicitor General and the Civil Registrar. The State, through the Solicitor General, filed an opposition, arguing that the requested corrections were substantial and not merely clerical, thus not amenable to the summary procedure under Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Despite the petitioners presenting evidence, the trial court denied their petition on March 31, 1980, upholding the State's opposition. A motion for reconsideration was also denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, seeking to reverse the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The petitioners argue that their correct surname is "Sison," as evidenced by their baptismal records, schooling, and family recognition, and that the "de la Cruz" entry in their birth certificates was an error. They contend that the proceedings, due to the publication of notice and the hearing on the merits where the State presented no evidence, were not summary and thus fell within the purview of Rule 103 (Change of Name) rather than being restricted by the limitations of Rule 108 (Correction of Entries). The Solicitor General, in his manifestation, has recommended the reversal of the appealed decision, acknowledging the precedent set by Kumala Salim Wing vs. Ahmad Abubakar.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for correction of surname from "de la Cruz" to "Sison", involving a change that appears substantial, can be granted under the summary procedure for correction of entries in the Civil Registry, considering the compliance with notice and hearing requirements. Whether the petitioners sufficiently proved that their true surname is "Sison" and if the "de la Cruz" entry in their birth certificates constitutes an error that can be corrected, considering the evidence of filiation and the circumstances surrounding the use of the "de la Cruz" surname.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Trial Court and granted the prayer for the change of the petitioners' surname from "de la Cruz" to "Sison" in their respective records of birth.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the petition for correction of surname from "de la Cruz" to "Sison", involving a change that appears substantial, can be granted under the summary procedure for correction of entries in the Civil Registry, considering the compliance with notice and hearing requirements: The Court held that while the requested correction of surname from "de la Cruz" to "Sison" might appear substantial, the proceedings were not summary. The requirements of notice and hearing were strictly complied with, including publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation and service of copies on the Solicitor General. The State was given ample opportunity to present its case but failed to adduce evidence in support of its opposition. Therefore, the trial court did not commit reversible error in considering the petition as one filed under the provisions of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, which governs petitions for change of name, rather than strictly under Rule 108 for mere clerical errors. The Court cited San Roque vs. Republic and Matias vs. Republic to support the view that even substantial corrections can be allowed if due process is observed and the proceedings are not summary. The case of Kumala Salim Wing vs. Ahmad Abubakar was also invoked, emphasizing that publication and notice to the Solicitor General, along with a hearing on the merits where the State is represented, negate the summary nature of the proceedings. Thus, the procedural framework allowed for the adjudication of the substantive issue. On the issue of whether the petitioners sufficiently proved that their true surname is "Sison" and if the "de la Cruz" entry in their birth certificates constitutes an error that can be corrected, considering the evidence of filiation and the circumstances surrounding the use of the "de la Cruz" surname: The Court found that the petitioners had sufficiently proved that their correct surname is "Sison". The evidence showed that their father, Antonio Sison, was the legitimate son of Gertrudes Reyes and Aurelio Sison. Although Antonio used the surname "de la Cruz" in his marriage contract and in the birth certificates of his children, this was an error. Philippine laws do not authorize legitimate children to adopt the surname of a person who is not their father, even if the mother was married to another man at the time of the child's birth or marriage. The Court noted that Antonio's use of "de la Cruz" might have been an attempt to hide his identity or an abuse related to his elopement, which led to the confusion. The baptismal and school records, as well as the names by which they were known to relatives and friends, consistently used the surname "Sison". The Court reiterated that a person's legal name is what appears in the civil register, but in this instance, the petition was treated as one for judicial authority to change names under Rule 103, allowing for the correction of the erroneous entry to reflect the true surname based on filiation. The Court concluded that the "de la Cruz" entry was indeed an error that needed correction to reflect the true surname of the petitioners.
Main Doctrine
A petition for correction of surname in a birth certificate, even if involving a substantial change, may be treated as a petition for change of name under Rule 103 if the proceedings comply with the requirements of notice and hearing, and the State is given ample opportunity to present its case, especially when the correction seeks to reflect the true surname of the child based on filiation.