Republic v. Nishina
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Nisaida Sumera Nishina, born on October 31, 1987, to a Filipino mother and a Japanese father, Koichi Nishina, faced a complex situation regarding her birth record. Her mother later married another Japanese national, Kenichi Hakamada, and subsequently divorced him. Following this, her mother married Takayuki Watanabe, who later adopted Nisaida by a decree issued by the Tokyo Family Court of Japan. The adoption decree was filed and recorded in the civil registry of Manila in 2006. Initially, no record of Nisaida's birth was found at the Malolos civil registry, leading to a late registration in 1993 under the surname of her mother's second husband, Hakamada. However, it later surfaced that her birth was indeed originally registered under the surname Nishina. 2. Procedural History: In 2007, Nisaida, represented by her mother, filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, seeking the cancellation of her birth record registered under the surname Hakamada and a change of surname in her original birth record to Watanabe, following her adoption. The RTC granted the petition, ordering the cancellation of the Hakamada birth record and the change of surname in the original record to Watanabe. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the petitioner used the wrong mode of appeal by failing to file a record on appeal, as required for special proceedings under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, agreeing that a record on appeal was necessary and its absence meant the appeal was not perfected. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' dismissal of its appeal. The petitioner argued that a record on appeal was not necessary in this case, as the RTC's order was a final determination of the matter and no further proceedings were pending in the trial court. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal. The Court clarified that a record on appeal is generally required in special proceedings when multiple appeals may arise or when further proceedings are pending in the trial court. In this instance, the RTC's order was final and dispositive, making an ordinary appeal via notice of appeal sufficient. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' resolutions and reinstated the petitioner's appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Republic's appeal for failure to file a record on appeal, considering the nature of the case. Whether a record on appeal is required in a petition for cancellation of birth record and change of surname, which is classified as a special proceeding, specifically when no multiple appeals are possible.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Court of Appeals Resolutions dismissing the appeal are reversed and set aside, and the appeal is reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requirement of a record on appeal and the dismissal of the appeal: The Court held that Section 2(a) of Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is taken by filing a notice of appeal. The appellate court's reliance on Zayco v. Hinlo, Jr. was misplaced as that case involved the administration of a deceased person's estate, a matter where multiple appeals could arise, unlike the present case which involved a final determination of the respondent's civil status and surname. Therefore, the appeal was improperly dismissed. On the requirement of a record on appeal in special proceedings: The Court clarified that the requirement of a record on appeal in special proceedings, as contemplated by Section 1 of Rule 109, is for situations where multiple appeals may arise during the pendency of the proceedings, necessitating the retention of the original records with the trial court to allow the rest of the case to proceed. In the present case, the filing of a record on appeal was not necessary because no other matter remained to be heard and determined by the trial court after it issued the order granting the respondent's petition for cancellation of birth record and change of surname. Therefore, the appeal was properly perfected by the filing of a notice of appeal alone.
Main Doctrine
In special proceedings where no other matter remains to be heard and determined by the trial court after the issuance of the appealed order, the filing of a record on appeal is not necessary for the perfection of an appeal.