View full case

REPUBLIC v. CARLITO I. KHO

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for the correction of entries in the birth certificates of respondents Carlito I. Kho, Michael Kho, Mercy Nona Kho-Fortun, and Heddy Moira Kho-Serrano, as well as in the birth certificates of Carlito's minor children Kevin and Kelly Dogmoc Kho. The petitioners sought the correction of various entries in their birth certificates, including the correction of the citizenship of their mother from "Chinese" to "Filipino," the deletion of the word "married" opposite the date of marriage of their parents, and the correction of the date of marriage of Carlito and his wife. The petition was filed before the RTC of Butuan City and was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. The trial court ordered the correction of the birth certificates as requested by the petitioners.

The case involves a petition for correction of entries in the birth records of the respondents, Kevin and Kelly. The petitioner, Carlito, sought to change the citizenship of his mother as it appeared in his birth certificate, as well as delete the "married" status of his parents in his and his siblings' birth certificates, and change the date of his marriage to Marivel. The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that the changes sought were substantial and controversial amendments, as they involved the correction of not just clerical errors but changes in nationality, filiation, and legal status. The CA held that the changes could only be granted through an adversary proceeding, in which all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented.

The CA also noted that although Carlito failed to observe the requirements of Rule 103, he had complied with the jurisdictional requirements for correction of entries under Rule 108. The petitioner argues that indispensable parties should have been notified or impleaded and that jurisdictional requirements were not satisfied. However, the Court held that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected through a petition filed under Rule 108.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito's parents rendered the trial short of the required adversary proceeding.

  2. Whether the trial court's judgment is void due to the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito's parents.

  3. Whether the party who was not impleaded in a petition for correction of entries in the civil registry can still be bound by the subsequent judgment.

  4. Whether the petitioner's parents should have been impleaded as parties to the proceeding.

  5. Whether the corrections sought for in the birth certificates are proper.

  6. Can the correction in Carlito's birth record of his mother's citizenship be allowed?

  7. Can the correction of Carlito's wife's name in his marriage certificate be allowed?

  8. Can the correction in Carlito's marriage certificate of his father's name be allowed?

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito's parents did not render the trial short of the required adversary proceeding. The publication of the order of hearing under Section 4 of Rule 108 cured the failure to implead an indispensable party. The trial court's judgment is not void.

  2. Yes, the party who was not impleaded in a petition for correction of entries in the civil registry can still be bound by the subsequent judgment. Compliance with Section 4, Rule 108, which requires notice by publication, cures the defect of non-impleading. The purpose of this rule is to bind the whole world to the subsequent judgment, even parties who should have been impleaded but were inadvertently left out of the petition. A petition for correction is an action in rem, and the decision on the petition binds not only the parties thereto but the whole world. (PRINCIPLE: A petition for correction is an action in rem, and publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding aims to bar objections and establish rights.)

  3. It becomes unnecessary to rule on whether the petitioner's parents should have been impleaded as parties to the proceeding because compliance with Section 4, Rule 108 cures any defect of non-impleading. During the hearing, the city prosecutor did not raise any objection to the non-inclusion of the petitioner's parents as parties to the proceeding. (PRINCIPLE: Compliance with Section 4, Rule 108 cures any defect of non-impleading, and failure to raise objections to non-inclusion may waive the right to challenge it.)

  4. The corrections sought for in the birth certificates are proper. The correction of the date of marriage is warranted because the certificate of marriage shows the correct date. The correction of the entry "Married" opposite the date of marriage of the parents is supported by evidence showing that they were never legally married. The correction of the petitioner's name is properly granted under Rule 108 because it falls under the category of changes of name. The correction of the mother's citizenship is also proper because the city prosecutor did not question it during the cross-examination, and the birth certificates of the petitioner's siblings consistently state the mother's citizenship as "Filipino." (PRINCIPLE: Corrections in the civil registry may be granted upon good and valid grounds, and supportive evidence may be presented to establish the corrections.)

  5. The correction in Carlito's birth record of his mother's citizenship can be allowed to avoid inconsistency with the natal circumstances of his siblings. Therefore, allowing the correction is justified.

  6. The correction of Carlito's wife's name in his marriage certificate can be allowed since it is a clerical or typographical error that is visible and obvious.

  7. The correction in Carlito's marriage certificate of his father's name can be allowed since it is consistent with the name entered in the birth certificates of Carlito and his siblings.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Substantial errors in the civil registry may be corrected through a petition filed under Rule 108.

  • Even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding.

  • An appropriate adversary proceeding refers to a proceeding wherein the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and afforded them an opportunity to contest it.

  • Republic Act No. 9048 allows for the administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors or change of first name or nickname in entries in the civil register, leaving substantial corrections to the entries of the civil register to be effectuated through Rule 108 in an appropriate adversarial proceeding.

  • The essential requirement for allowing substantial corrections of entries in the civil registry is that the true facts be established in an appropriate adversarial proceeding.

  • Section 3 of Rule 108 states that when cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.

  • The publication of the order of hearing under Section 4 of Rule 108 may cure the failure to implead an indispensable party.

  • Corrections of substantial errors can be allowed to maintain consistency and avoid inconsistency in vital records.

  • Clerical or typographical errors can be corrected through summary proceedings.

  • Corrections that do not affect the substantial rights of the parties involved can be granted.