Braza vs. City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City Case Digest G.R. No. 181174 ; December 4, 2009

Braza vs. City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City Case Digest 

G.R. No. 181174 ; December 4, 2009

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (vis a vis Art. 412 of the Civil Code)

- It charts the procedure by which an entry in the civil registry may be cancelled or corrected. The proceeding contemplated therein may generally be used ONLY TO CORRECT CLERICAL, SPELLING, TYPOGRAPHICAL AND OTHER INNOCUOUS ERRORS IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY.

b) Clerical Error vs. Substantial Error

1. Clerical error

- One which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing; or a harmless change such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parent.

- Allowed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court

2. Substantial or contentious alterations - may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due process is properly observed.

c) Rule 108 does not cover action to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiations.

In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Original Registry), the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiations.

Persons and Family Relations

a) Validity of marriages can only be impugned in a direct action

Validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attack such as the petition filed before the court a quo.

FACTS: Petitioner Ma. Cristina Braza and Pablo Braza Jr. married in 1978. Pablo died. During the wake, respondent Lucille and her son, Patrick showed up and introduced themselves as the wife and son, respectively, of Pablo. Cristina made inquiries in the course of which she obtained Patrick’s birth certificate from the Local Civil Registrar which stated that: (1) Patrick has been acknowledged as the son of Pablo and, (2) Patrick was legitimated by virtue of the subsequent marriage of his parents. As a consequence of his legitimation, his name was changed to Patrick Alvin Titular Braza. Cristina likewise obtained a copy of a marriage contract showing that Pablo and Lucille were married in 1998.

Cristina and her co-petitioners filed before the RTC a petition to correct the entries in the birth certificate record of Patrick in the Local Civil Registry. They contended that Patrick could not have been legitimated by the supposed subsequent marriage between Lucille and Pablo because said marriage is bigamous on account of a valid and subsisting marriage between her (Cristina) and Pablo. Petitioner prayed for: (1) correction of Patrick’s use of the surname “BRAZA”; (2) to submit Patrick to DNA testing to determine his paternity and filiation; and  (3) the declaration of nullity of the legitimation of Patrick as stated in his birth certificate and, for this purpose, the declaration of the marriage between Lucille and Pablo as bigamous.

RTC dismissed the petition holding that in a special proceeding for correction of entry, the court, which is not acting as a family court under the Family Code, has no jurisdiction over an action to annul the marriage of Lucille and Pablo, impugn the legitimacy of Patrick, and order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test, and that the controversy should be ventilated in an ordinary adversarial action. Petitioners then filed this instant petition for review.

ISSUE/S: WON a court pass upon the validity of marriage and questions on legitimacy in an action to correct entries in the civil registrar under Rule 108?

HELD: NO.  In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Original Registry), the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiations.

In relation to the instant case, the petitioners’ cause of action is actually to seek the declaration of Pablo and Lucille’s marriage as void for being bigamous and impugn Patrick’s legitimacy, which causes of action are governed not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, and Art. 171 of the Family Code, respectively. Hence, the petition should be filed in a Family Court as expressly provided in said Code.

Furthermore, doctrinally, validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attack such as the petition filed before the court a quo.