Case Digest (G.R. No. 200344)
Facts:
Glenn M. Miller, substituted by his surviving legal heirs, namely: Evelyn L. Miller; Jennifer Ann L. Miller; Leslie Ann L. Miller; Rachel Ann L. Miller; and Valerie Ann L. Miller, Petitioner, vs. Joan Miller y Espenida a.k.a. Johnlyn Miller y Espenida and the Local Civil Registrar of Gubat, Sorsogon, Respondents, G.R. No. 200344, November 9, 2020, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.John Miller (John) and Beatriz Marcaida were married and had children including Glenn M. Miller and others. After John’s death in 1990, Joan Miller (Joan)—whose mother is Lennie Espenida—filed a partition and accounting action claiming to be John’s illegitimate child; she submitted a birth certificate that listed John as her father. Glenn separately filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Joan’s certificate of live birth (seeking to replace the surname Miller with Espenida) on the ground that John never acknowledged Joan and therefore she should not bear his surname.
At trial, evidence showed two birth certificates for Joan (dated June 30, 1982 and July 20, 1982), neither bearing John’s signature in the affidavit of acknowledgment. Joan and her mother testified that John openly recognized Joan, produced letters, a holographic will leaving Joan a share of the estate, and a document designating a guardian/trustee for Joan. Glenn challenged the authenticity and probative value of those documents.
The Regional Trial Court (Masbate City, Branch 48) dismissed Glenn’s petition on November 26, 2004, ruling that the writings and acts presented constituted acknowledgment of Joan as an illegitimate child and ordering the Local Civil Registrar to maintain the status quo and not amend Joan’s birth certificate. The Court of Appeals (Ninth Division) affirmed by Decision dated June 30, 2011, holding that recognition in a holographic will is sufficient for paternal filiation (citing Article 173 in relation to Article 172 of the Family Code and Gono-Javier v. Court of Appeals) and that Glenn failed to prove forgery. A motion for reconsideration was denied by CA Resolution of February 3, 2012.
Petitioners (substituting Glenn as his heirs) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal. The parties submitted memoranda. Petitioners argued that Joan was born in 1982 and thus Article 368 of the Civil Code (illegitimate children bear the mother’s surname) applies; they also contended Article 176 of the Family Code and Dela Cruz v. Gracia were relevant to the alleged holographic will’s sufficiency, and raised forgery and judicial bias issues. Joan defended the sufficiency of her evidence and invoked Republic Act ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May legitimacy and filiation be finally determined in a petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of the Petition for Correction of Entries in Joan Miller y Espenida’s certificate of live birth (i.e., in allowing Joan to co...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)