Case Digest (G.R. No. 198010)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Dr. Norma S. Lugsanay Uy, G.R. No. 198010, May 12, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines (through the Office of the Solicitor General); respondent is Dr. Norma S. Lugsanay Uy, who filed the underlying petition for correction of entries in her certificate of live birth.
On March 8, 2004, respondent filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in her Certificate of Live Birth before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Gingoog City, impleading the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City. Respondent alleged she was born February 8, 1952; that her birth certificate records her name as Anita Sy, her citizenship as Chinese and her parents as Sy Ton (father) and Sotera Lugsanay (mother). She claimed, however, that she has long been known as Norma S. Lugsanay (as shown in school records, her PRC Board of Medicine certificate and passport), that her siblings bear the surname Lugsanay and Filipino citizenship, and that her parents were never married so she should properly bear her mother’s surname (i.e., be illegitimate).
The RTC, by order dated May 13, 2004, found the petition sufficient in form and substance, set the case for hearing, ordered publication of the notice once a week for three consecutive weeks at petitioner's expense, and directed service upon the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the City Prosecutor. Respondent complied with publication.
On June 28, 2004, the RTC granted the petition, directing the City Civil Registrar to correct respondent’s name to “NORMA SY LUGSANAY” and citizenship to “FILIPINO,” concluding that the corrections would not prejudice the government or third parties and that the names Anita Sy and Norma Sy Lugsanay referred to the same person (the Local Civil Registrar had allegedly already effected the correction).
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on February 18, 2011 affirmed the RTC in toto, holding that the failure to implead other indispensable parties was cured by the RTC’s publication of notice and service on the Local Civil Registrar, the OSG and the City Prosecutor; and that the petition was not an impermissible collateral attack on filiation because the parents were not married and the siblings’ certificates supported respondent’s claim. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated July 27, 2011.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for correction of entries properly adjudicated despite the failure to implead indispensable parties, i.e., was the failure cured by publication and service on the State?
- May a petition under Rule 108 be used, via summary proceedings, to effect substantial corrections that change filiation (legitimacy) and citizenship without strict compliance with Rule 108 ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)