View full case

REPUBLIC v. DR. NORMA S. LUGSANAY UY

FACTS:

Respondent Dr. Norma S. Lugsanay Uy filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in her Certificate of Live Birth, claiming that her registered name "Anita Sy" is incorrect and that she should be recognized as "Norma S. Lugsanay." She also asserted that she is an illegitimate child and a Filipino citizen, contrary to what is stated in her birth certificate. Despite previously filing a petition for correction with the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City, the requested changes were not reflected in the records of the National Statistics Office (NSO). Subsequently, she filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gingoog City. Following compliance with the publication requirement, the RTC granted her petition. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision. However, the Republic of the Philippines lodged a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, maintaining that the failure to include indispensable parties necessitates the dismissal of the petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the changes made in the petitioner's birth certificate, such as changing her surname and citizenship, are substantial and affect her status and rights.

  2. Whether the petitioner availed herself of the appropriate adversary proceeding to correct the errors in the civil registry.

  3. Whether the respondent followed the proper procedure in changing her civil status, surname, and citizenship in her birth certificate.

  4. Whether the failure to implead and notify all affected parties in the petition for correction of entry in the civil register was a ground for nullifying the trial court's decision.

RULING:

  1. The changes made in the petitioner's birth certificate are substantial and affect her status and rights. The Supreme Court has consistently held that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established through the appropriate adversary proceeding.

  2. The petitioner did not avail herself of the appropriate adversary proceeding to correct the errors in the civil registry. The petitioner failed to implead all the indispensable parties required by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The publication of the notice of hearing pursuant to Rule 108 does not cure the failure to implead the indispensable parties.

  3. The respondent did not follow the proper procedure in changing her civil status, surname, and citizenship in her birth certificate. The petition should have been filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which requires strict compliance with the procedure laid down in the said rule. Additionally, the respondent failed to implead the Civil Registrar of Makati City and all affected parties as respondents.

  4. The failure to implead and notify all affected parties in the petition for correction of entry in the civil register was a ground for nullifying the trial court's decision. The court held that in cases involving substantial and controversial alterations in the civil register, strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 is mandated. The purpose of the notice and summons is to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect their interest if they so choose.

PRINCIPLES:

  • 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. (Republic v. Valencia)

  • An appropriate adversary proceeding requires legal warning to the opposing party and an opportunity to contest the relief sought. (Black's Law Dictionary)

  • Failure to implead indispensable parties in a petition for correction of entries can be cured by compliance with Rule 108, specifically notice by publication. (Republic v. Kho, Alba v. Court of Appeals, and Barco v. Court of Appeals)

  • The absence of personal service in a proceeding in rem is cured by compliance with Rule 108 which requires notice by publication. (Alba v. Court of Appeals)

  • The publication of the notice of hearing in a petition for correction of entries can cure the failure to implead indispensable parties. (Barco v. Court of Appeals)

  • The change in civil status from legitimate to illegitimate can only be effected through an appropriate adversary proceeding.

  • The proper remedy for changing entries in the civil register is a petition filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

  • Strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 is mandated in cases involving substantial and controversial alterations in the civil register.

  • Failure to implead and notify all affected parties in the petition for correction of entry is a ground for nullifying the trial court's decision.

  • Notice and summons must be served to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process.