G.R. No. L-31712 - IN RE: Rosales vs. Rosales

Ernesto V. Rosales, the petitioner-appellant, filed a petition for the cancellation and/or correction of entries in the Civil Registrar.
The petition alleged that he was married to Asuncion Z. Castillo Rosales on June 24, 1942, in Carmen, Cebu, and that four children were born of that marriage.
The petitioner claimed that on April 13, 1950, he and his wife "separated" when he left for Iloilo to seek employment, after which they ceased to cohabit.

The petitioner asserted that due to the separation, his wife engaged in an illicit adulterous relationship with Vidal Rivera starting in January 1952.
As a result of the adulterous relationship, four children were born: Teresita Castillo, Cecilia Rosales, Emmanuel C. Rosales, and Milagros Socorro C. Rivera.
The petitioner contended that errors in the civil registry, specifically in the birth records of Cecilia and Emmanuel, incorrectly recorded him as the father instead of Vidal Rivera.
He further alleged that these errors were caused by Mrs. F. L. Ramiro, the proprietress of the St. Anthony Maternity and General Clinic where the minors were born.

The petitioner prayed that the four children be declared not to be his legitimate offspring, thereby dissociating him from their paternity.
He also sought an order directing the Civil Registrar of Cebu City to correct the birth records to remove his surname from those of the minors.
On March 18, 1969, the petition was filed before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and the court set the petition for hearing with notice and publication orders.
The Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City, acting on behalf of the respondents, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the alleged errors were substantial (involving issues of paternity and filiation) and not mere clerical mistakes as contemplated by Rule 108 in relation to Article 412 of the Civil Code.

On June 20, 1969, the Civil Registrar filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the correction involved substantial changes affecting paternity, filiation, and the legitimacy of the children.
The petitioner opposed the motion on July 7, 1969, but the lower court ruled against the petition, issuing its order on July 26, 1969, dismissing the petition based on the substantial and controversial nature of the errors involved.
The petition was thus dismissed on the ground that correction under Rule 108 is limited to clerical errors and does not extend to changes affecting substantive rights.

Whether the correction of entries in the Civil Registrar involving paternity, filiation, and legitimacy issues can be processed under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Whether the errors alleged by the petitioner, though described as clerical in form, are in substance substantial and controversial.

Whether the alleged errors in the birth records of the minors—specifically regarding the name of the father—qualify as mere clerical mistakes or as substantial errors affecting civil status and legitimacy.
Whether such substantial errors should be resolved in a summary proceeding under Article 412 or in a proper adversary proceeding as required by law.

Whether the petition adequately alleges a cause of action that permits correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry through the procedural mechanism provided by Rule 108.
The role of prior jurisprudence in determining the limits of the corrective procedure when it comes to issues that affect substantive rights.