Fox v. Philippine Statistics Authority
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Roice Anne F. Fox married Canadian citizen Thomas Kenneth K. Fox in Davao City. They settled in Canada, where their daughter, Zion Pearl Fox, was born on June 27, 2015. The birth was registered in Regina, Saskatchewan, and Zion was issued a Canadian passport, both correctly stating her birthdate. The Philippine Consulate Office (PCO) in Calgary, Alberta, subsequently submitted a Report of Birth to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in Manila. However, due to an error, the PCO incorrectly recorded Zion's birthdate as June 27, 2016, in this report. When petitioner brought this discrepancy to the PCO's attention, she was advised to file a petition for correction of entry in the Philippines. Procedural History: On January 17, 2017, petitioner filed a Petition for Correction of Entry with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she resided. The RTC, in an Order dated March 24, 2017, motu proprio dismissed the petition, citing lack of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the correction should be sought in the RTC where the civil registry is located, which it determined to be Manila, where the PSA office is situated. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC in an Order dated July 24, 2017, reiterating that the RTC of Davao City was not the proper venue as the birth fact was recorded directly with the PSA in Manila, not with a local civil registrar in Davao City. The Petition: Petitioner Roice Anne F. Fox filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court. She assails the RTC's Orders dated March 24, 2017, and July 24, 2017, which dismissed her petition for correction of entry on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The core legal issue presented is whether the RTC correctly dismissed her petition motu proprio for lack of jurisdiction, considering the circumstances of the erroneous recording of her daughter's birthdate in the Report of Birth submitted to the PSA.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City correctly dismissed the petition for correction of entry on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, considering the requirements of Rule 108 regarding venue and indispensable parties. Whether the nature of Rule 108 as a special proceeding necessitates strict compliance with its procedural requirements, specifically regarding venue and the impleading of the civil registrar, for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for correction of entry concerning a Report of Birth filed with the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in Manila, originating from a birth abroad registered with the Philippine Consulate Office in Canada.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Orders dated March 24, 2017 and July 24, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54 of Davao City are affirmed. The dismissal of the petition for correction of entry for lack of jurisdiction is upheld, without prejudice to its refiling in the proper court with full compliance with the requirements of Rule 108.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and venue for a petition for correction of entry under Rule 108: The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure clearly states that a petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry in the civil register must be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. In this case, the Report of Birth was submitted by the Philippine Consulate Office in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, directly to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in Manila. Therefore, the civil registry in question was located in Manila, not Davao City, where the petitioner resided. The RTC of Davao City correctly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the petition as it was not filed in the proper venue as mandated by Rule 108. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the importance of impleading the civil registrar as an indispensable party in petitions filed under Rule 108. Citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, the Court stressed that the local civil registrar is an indispensable party without whom no final determination of the case can be reached. The absence of the civil registrar renders all subsequent proceedings and the judgment void for lack of jurisdiction, both as to the party and the subject matter. In this case, the petition failed to implead the civil registrar, which is another ground for the RTC to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. On the nature of Rule 108 as a special proceeding: The Court emphasized that Rule 108 pertains to a special proceeding, which is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. As a special proceeding, the specific provisions of Rule 108, particularly those concerning venue, must be strictly observed to vest the court with jurisdiction. The case of Fujiki v. Marinay was cited to highlight that Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify facts of a person's life recorded by the State, which are of public consequence and in which the State has an interest in recording. The Court concluded that due to the defects in the filing of the petition, specifically the improper venue and the failure to implead the civil registrar, the RTC of Davao City could not be faulted for dismissing the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal was deemed proper, but it was made without prejudice to the refiling of the petition in the appropriate court, provided that all the specific requirements of Rule 108 are fully complied with. This ensures that the petitioner is not entirely deprived of a remedy, but must adhere to the procedural rules governing such actions.
Main Doctrine
A petition for correction of entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court must be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. Failure to implead the civil registrar as an indispensable party renders the proceedings void for lack of jurisdiction.