Title
Source: Supreme Court
Republic vs. Timario
Case
G.R. No. 234251
Decision Date
Jun 30, 2020
A petitioner sought to correct her birth record, but the Supreme Court ruled against her, citing failure to implead indispensable parties and insufficient evidence for substantial corrections.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 234251)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • Respondent Salome C. Timario filed a petition for correction of entries on November 5, 2015, seeking to correct her birth record.
    • She alleged she was born on November 17, 1950, as the eldest daughter of Spouses Rosenda B. Acasio and Antonio A. Casera.
    • Her official records, including Voter Certification, Baptismal Certificate, and Marriage Contract, consistently showed the father’s name as Antonio Casera and date of birth as November 17, 1950.
    • However, she discovered another birth certificate under Registry No. 92-03432 indicating her birth date as November 17, 1949, and father’s name as Pedro Langam.
    • She petitioned to cancel the erroneous birth certificate (Registry No. 92-03432).
  • Proceedings Before the Trial Court
    • The petition was published for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, "The Panguil Bay Monitor."
    • The case was initially set for hearing on December 10, 2015.
    • The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance and deputized the City Prosecutor of Ozamiz City to litigate the case before the trial court on February 19, 2016.
    • On February 29, 2016, the trial court permitted the respondent to present evidence ex parte.
  • Decision of the Trial Court
    • On April 8, 2016, the trial court granted the petition ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Ozamiz City to correct the birth certificate as follows:
a) Change father’s name from Pedro P. Langam to Antonio Casera b) Change date of birth from November 17, 1949, to November 17, 1950
  • The trial court found the documentary evidence (Voter Certification, Baptismal Certificate, Marriage Contract) sufficient to justify the correction.
  • The Republic of the Philippines filed a Comment/Opposition on April 26, 2016, alleging the failure to implead indispensable parties (the two purported fathers, mother, and siblings) violating Section 3, Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court.
  • The Republic contended the respondent failed to present sufficient proof to justify the relief prayed for and questioned the validity of calling the proceedings ex parte.
  • Decision of the Court of Appeals
    • The Republic appealed the trial court decision.
    • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in its decision dated May 31, 2017, holding:
a) The petition complied with Rule 108’s jurisdictional requirements; publication cured the failure to implead indispensable parties. b) Due process was observed as notices were served to the OSG, City Prosecutor, and Local Civil Registrar; the deputized prosecutor’s failure to oppose presentation of evidence ex parte barred further complaints. c) Evidence on record clearly reflected the correct name of the father and date of birth.
  • The Republic’s motion for reconsideration was denied via resolution dated August 29, 2017.
  • Present Petition Before the Supreme Court
    • The Republic filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, urging reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decisions.
    • The Republic raised the following main arguments:
a) The Court of Appeals erred in holding that publication cured the failure to implead indispensable parties. b) Procedural due process was violated due to the ex parte presentation of evidence without opportunity for cross-examination.
  • The respondent did not file a comment to the petition.

Issues:

  • Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over the petition for correction of entries despite the respondent’s failure to implead indispensable parties as required under Section 3, Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court?
  • Whether or not publication of the petition may cure the failure to implead indispensable parties in correction of entries involving substantial correction.
  • Whether the ex parte presentation of evidence before the trial court, without allowing the Republic to cross-examine the respondent, violates procedural due process.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms