G.R. No. L-26982 - Matias vs. Republic

Rosalinda Matias, the petitioner-appellee, filed a petition seeking the insertion of her name in her certificate of birth.
The birth certificate, maintained by the Civil Registrar of Malabon, Rizal, had a blank space for the child’s name.
Petitioner claimed that she was born in Malabon, Rizal, on 28 February 1941, and that all other particulars in the certificate (such as date, time, place of birth, parents' names, and domicile) correctly corresponded to her actual birth record.

Petitioner initiated the petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
In observance of due process, the petition was published by posting copies in the provincial capitol building in Pasig and in the municipal building of Malabon for at least two weeks.
Copies were also served upon the Solicitor General and the Civil Registrar of Malabon, Rizal.
The Civil Registrar and the Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing that a petition for correction of entries in the Civil Register under Article 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines was only applicable to clerical errors.
They contended that the amendment sought by the petitioner did not constitute a clerical error and was therefore not subject to correction by the court.

At the hearing, the petitioner presented testimony from the nurse midwife who had attended her birth, affirming that the omission of her name was due to oversight.
The nurse’s testimony was corroborated by the petitioner’s father, who also testified in her favor.
The petitioner introduced her baptismal certificate, which bore the name Rosalinda Matias and corresponded with the birth certificate in terms of date of birth and parental information.

Based on the evidence presented and the procedural requirements met, the Court of First Instance granted the petitioner’s prayer on 14 August 1961.
The decision involved directing the Civil Registrar of Malabon to insert the petitioner’s name in the birth certificate records.

The Solicitor General, representing the State, appealed the decision on the ground that the correction sought did not fall within the ambit of a clerical error as contemplated by Article 412 of the Civil Code.
The State maintained that the judicial order for correction was impermissible under existing law and jurisprudence concerning amendments in the civil register.

Whether the insertion of a name, omitted initially from a birth certificate, constitutes an action permissible by judicial order even though it is not a correction of a clerical error per se.
Whether the statutory and jurisprudential framework allows the subsequent insertion of a name into the birth record based on supplemental evidence and judicial proceedings.

Whether the Ty Kong Tin doctrine—which restricts material corrections or amendments by summary action against the Civil Registrar—applies in a full, notice-and-hearing judicial proceeding.
Whether the proper notice and comprehensive hearing, as in this case, render the doctrine non-controlling.