Title
Ordona vs. Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City
Case
G.R. No. 215370
Decision Date
Nov 9, 2021
Petitioner sought to correct her child’s birth certificate, alleging forged paternity acknowledgment. Courts upheld the child’s legitimacy under marriage, denying her petition as she lacked standing to challenge paternity.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 215370)

Facts:

  • Marriage and Birth
    • Petitioner Richelle Busque Ordoña married Ariel O. Libut on October 10, 2000 in Las Piñas City.
    • In January 2010, she gave birth in Pasig City to Alrich Paul, whose Certificate of Live Birth bore “Fulgueras” as surname and listed Allan D. Fulgueras as father.
  • Petition for Correction (Rule 108)
    • On September 7, 2011, petitioner filed a verified petition under Rule 108 seeking to (a) change the child’s surname from “Fulgueras” to her maiden name “Ordoña” and (b) delete all paternal entries (Items 13–17).
    • The RTC set hearings, directed publication for three weeks, served notice on the Solicitor General, local civil registrar, city prosecutor and Allan, and enjoined interested parties to oppose. No opposition was filed.
  • Trial Court Proceedings
    • Petitioner testified and offered Engineer Michael Mantes to show physical impossibility of Allan’s acknowledgment.
    • On April 25, 2012, RTC Branch 166, Pasig City denied the petition, upholding the prima facie validity of the Affidavit of Acknowledgment and the child’s right to use his alleged father’s surname. A motion for reconsideration was denied on July 26, 2012.
  • Appeals and Petition for Review
    • The Court of Appeals denied the petition on April 10, 2014, declaring the child presumed legitimate under Articles 164 and 167 of the Family Code and directing the birth certificate to reflect Ariel Libut as father and “Libut” as surname. Reconsideration was denied October 14, 2014.
    • Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. The OSG commented; Allan filed no opposition.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction and Standing under Rule 108
    • Whether petitioner impleaded all indispensable parties and gave proper notice.
    • Whether Rule 108 is the appropriate remedy to correct entries affecting filiation and legitimacy.
  • Collateral Attack on Legitimacy and Filiation
    • Whether legitimacy and filiation may be collaterally attacked in a petition for correction of entries.
    • Whether the mother may effectively impugn her child’s legitimacy under existing law.
  • Substantive Law and Public Policy
    • Whether Articles 164–171 of the Family Code permit a mother to challenge presumed legitimacy.
    • Whether international and constitutional mandates on gender equality (e.g., CEDAW, Const. Art. II, Sec. 14) require a different interpretation.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.