Alba v. Herrera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Rosendo C. Herrera filed a petition to cancel entries in the birth certificate of Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr., specifically the surname "Herrera," the reference to private respondent as father, and the alleged marriage to Armi A. Alba. Private respondent claimed these entries were false and he only learned of the birth certificate in September 1996. He asserted he was married only once to Ezperanza C. Santos and never married Armi nor fathered the child. Certifications from the Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong City and the National Statistics Office confirmed no record of marriage between private respondent and Armi. Procedural History: The trial court issued an order for hearing, publication, and service of notice to Armi at her address in the birth certificate (418 Arquiza St., Ermita, Manila), the Civil Registrar, and the Solicitor General. An amended order rescheduled the hearing and a copy was published in "Today" newspaper and sent to Armi's address. The process server noted that Armi was no longer residing at the given address. At the hearing, the Solicitor General appeared but filed no opposition, and Armi was absent. The trial court rendered a decision ordering the deletion of the surname "Herrera, Jr." and the marriage entry. Subsequently, an amended decision ordered the deletion of "Rosendo Caparas Herrera" as the name of the father. Armi and the minor child filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, alleging extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, claiming Armi only learned of the decision when private respondent used a court order to change the minor's surname. Armi asserted private respondent knew her correct address and deliberately used the old address to prevent her from opposing. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding no proof of fraud and stating that an illegitimate child should bear the mother's surname. The motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioners assailed the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution via a petition for certiorari, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction over their persons and that extrinsic fraud was employed.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners. Whether extrinsic fraud was committed by the private respondent. Whether the petition for annulment of judgment should be granted.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The February 27, 2004 decision and the May 14, 2004 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61883 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court held that a petition for correction of entries in a certificate of birth, as in this case, is an action in rem. In such proceedings, jurisdiction over the res (the civil registry records) is acquired by the filing of the petition and the subsequent publication of the order for hearing. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite for the court to validly try and decide the case, as the publication serves as notice to the whole world. The service of the order at the address listed in the birth certificate and its publication in a newspaper of general circulation sufficiently complied with the requirements of due process and Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court reiterated that an in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication, which binds even parties who should have been impleaded but were inadvertently left out, citing Barco v. Court of Appeals. On the issue of extrinsic fraud: The Court found that extrinsic fraud was not proven. Extrinsic fraud requires a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside the trial that prevented the defeated party from presenting their case. Armi's claims that private respondent knew her correct address were not sufficiently substantiated by the evidence presented, such as the deed of sale, which was a mere photocopy and its authenticity was not proven. The alleged love letters were not formally offered as evidence, and the affidavits of Armi and her sister were considered hearsay as they were not presented for cross-examination. Since the evidence did not prove private respondent's knowledge of Armi's actual address, it could not be proven that he deliberately concealed it from the court. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment on this ground. On the merits of the petition for annulment of judgment: The Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment. It noted that the proper remedy for a party aggrieved by a Court of Appeals decision in an annulment of judgment case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, as the latter cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal. Furthermore, the Court considered the substantive aspect concerning the surname of the child. Under Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by RA 9255, illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother unless their filiation is recognized by the father. Given that private respondent denied paternity and Armi admitted the child was illegitimate and never married to private respondent, the child is an unrecognized illegitimate child and must bear his mother's surname. Thus, the trial court's decision to correct the surname was substantively sound.
Main Doctrine
A petition for correction of entries in a certificate of birth, being an action in rem, is validated essentially through publication, which binds the whole world, and personal service of notice is not a prerequisite for jurisdiction, although it is required for due process. Failure to prove extrinsic fraud, which requires a fraudulent act outside the trial preventing a party from presenting their case, is also a ground for dismissal.