Mossesgeld v. Court of Appeals
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the registration of a birth certificate for an illegitimate child. The child's mother, Marissa A. Mossesgeld, sought to register the birth using the surname of the presumed father, Eleazar Siriban Calasan, who was married to another woman. Calasan signed the birth certificate as the informant and executed an affidavit admitting paternity. The hospital initially refused to register the birth with the father's surname, leading the mother to submit the certificate to the local civil registrar. 2. Procedural History: The Local Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong rejected the registration based on Circular No. 4 of the Civil Registrar General, which mandates that illegitimate children born after August 3, 1988, must use their mother's surname under Article 176 of the Family Code. After the Civil Registrar General denied registration, Eleazar S. Calasan filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig to compel registration. The RTC denied the petition, and after a motion for reconsideration and substitution of petitioner by Marissa A. Mossesgeld, the RTC again denied the petition. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's decision. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The case is before the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. The petitioner seeks to overturn the Court of Appeals' decision, which affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the petition for mandamus. The core issue presented is whether mandamus lies to compel the Local Civil Registrar to register a birth certificate of an illegitimate child using the alleged father's surname, despite Article 176 of the Family Code, when the father has admitted paternity. The petitioner argues that the father's admission of paternity should allow the use of his surname.
Issue(s)
Whether mandamus lies to compel the Local Civil Registrar to register a certificate of live birth of an illegitimate child using the alleged father's surname where the latter admitted paternity. Whether Article 176 of the Family Code, as implemented by Circular No. 4 of the Civil Registrar General, correctly prohibits the use of the father's surname by an illegitimate child even with the father's admission of paternity.
Ruling
The Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court which dismissed the petition for mandamus. The Court ruled that mandamus will not lie to compel the registration of a birth certificate using the father's surname for an illegitimate child, as it is contrary to law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether mandamus lies to compel the Local Civil Registrar to register a certificate of live birth of an illegitimate child using the alleged father's surname where the latter admitted paternity: The Court held that mandamus will not lie in this case. Mandamus is a writ that compels the performance of a ministerial duty. However, it cannot be used to compel the performance of an act that is prohibited by law. In this instance, the registration of the birth certificate with the father's surname for an illegitimate child would be an act prohibited by Article 176 of the Family Code. Therefore, the Local Civil Registrar correctly refused to register the certificate as presented, and the petition for mandamus was properly dismissed by the lower courts. On the issue of whether Article 176 of the Family Code, as implemented by Circular No. 4 of the Civil Registrar General, correctly prohibits the use of the father's surname by an illegitimate child even with the father's admission of paternity: The Court affirmed the application of Article 176 of the Family Code. This provision clearly states that "illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother." This rule applies regardless of whether the father admits paternity or not. The Family Code has eliminated the classification of acknowledged natural children, simplifying the categories to only legitimate and illegitimate children. Consequently, the prior right of an acknowledged natural child to use the father's surname under the Civil Code is no longer applicable. The Civil Registrar General's Circular No. 4 correctly implemented this provision by directing that illegitimate children born on or after August 3, 1988, shall use the surname of their mother. The Court also noted that the putative father could legally adopt his illegitimate child, in which case the child would be considered legitimate and entitled to use the adopter's surname.
Main Doctrine
Under Article 176 of the Family Code, illegitimate children shall use the surname and be under the parental authority of their mother, regardless of whether the father admits paternity. Mandamus will not lie to compel the local civil registrar to register a birth certificate using the father's surname if it contravenes this provision.