G.R. No. 120587 - Barco vs. Court of Appeals

On December 24, 1970, Nadina Maravilla married Francisco Maravilla.
By February 1977, the spouses began living separately, and by February 1978 they obtained an ecclesiastical annulment of their marriage.
Nadina gave birth to a daughter, June Salvacion, on June 9, 1978, in Makati, where the birth certificate recorded Francisco as the father and “Maravilla” as the surname.
Despite the certificate, Nadina later claimed that the true father was Armando Gustilo, a former Congressman with whom she had a relationship.
Armando Gustilo was at the time married to Consuelo Caraycon, who later died in the MV Don Juan accident; subsequently, Nadina and Gustilo married in the United States on August 21, 1982.

On March 17, 1983, Nadina filed a petition for correction of entries in June’s certificate at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, alleging that she had been separated from Francisco since February 1977 and that Armstrong Gustilo was actually the child's father.
The petition sought to change the child’s full name to include Gustilo’s surname and rectify the entry of the father’s name.
Francisco, whose name appeared in the original petition, signed to indicate his conformity, and on March 20, 1983, Gustilo submitted a "Constancia" acknowledging June as his daughter and expressing no objection to the petition.

The RTC docketed the petition under SP Proc. No. M-130 and issued an Order, in compliance with Rule 108, requiring publication of the notice for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.
Following an amendment to the petition on September 7, 1983, which added Francisco and Gustilo as respondents, the RTC modified its Order correspondingly.
The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, claiming lack of jurisdiction and categorizing the required corrections as substantial rather than clerical, but the RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss and later granted the petition on January 7, 1985.
In granting the petition, the RTC considered Nadina’s reliance on counsel (her uncle William R. Veto), her physical discomfort during signing, and the clear manifestations of consent by Francisco and Gustilo.

After Gustilo’s death on December 19, 1986, estate proceedings were initiated in both Makati and Harris County, Texas.
In 1993, Jose Vicente Gustilo, claiming to be a biological child of Gustilo, petitioned the Court of Appeals for annulment of the RTC Order. He later added Nadina as an indispensable party.
On January 11, 1994, Milagros Barco, acting in her capacity as natural guardian/guardian ad litem of Mary Joy Ann Gustilo, intervened filing a Complaint-in-Intervention. Barco contended that Mary Joy’s legal interest was affected by the petition, asserting that she had a longstanding relationship with Gustilo and was the biological mother of Mary Joy.

Barco contested the jurisdiction of the RTC, arguing that her failure to be formally impleaded deprived the RTC of proper jurisdiction over all parties.
Additional claims by Barco questioned the scope and application of Rule 108, arguing that it was limited to innocuous or clerical errors (citing Republic v. Valencia) and should not cover substantial changes affecting filiation and legitimacy.
Barco further asserted that the petition was untimely by virtue of a prescribed period under Article 263 of the Civil Code and that it should be considered a petition for a change of name, which only the person whose name is sought to be changed may file.
Other arguments centered on the presumed legal presumption of legitimacy and the admissibility and credibility of Gustilo’s Constancia.

Whether the RTC obtained proper jurisdiction over all interested parties, including those not expressly impleaded (such as Barco), through mandatory publication as required under Rules 108.
Whether the failure to name all parties in the initial filing could be cured by subsequent publication and notice, thereby preserving the court's jurisdiction.

Whether a petition for correction under Rule 108, even when involving substantial or controversial corrections that affect filiation and legitimacy, falls within the ambit of available judicial correction under Article 412 of the Civil Code and its implementing rules.
Whether the petition’s nature (correcting entries versus changing a name) alters the jurisdictional competence of the RTC.

Whether the petition for correction was filed beyond the prescriptive period stated in Article 263 of the Civil Code concerning the legitimacy of a child.
Whether the petitioner had the capacity to file an action for change of name when such change is traditionally reserved for the person whose name is to be altered.

Whether the Constancia executed by Gustilo (or purportedly executed) can be considered valid, credible evidence in establishing paternity.
Whether the circumstances surrounding the signing of documents and the reliance on inadvertence by counsel impact the evidentiary weight and integrity of the corrections made.

Whether the alleged jurisdictional defects or errors in the RTC’s exercise of jurisdiction (shouldering clerical versus substantial corrections) constitute a sufficient basis, under extrinsic fraud or complete lack of jurisdiction, for annulment of the final order.