G.R. No. 1448 - Villa vs. Allen

Eduardo Santos, petitioner, filed a petition for correction of entries and cancellation of annotation in his Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
The reliefs sought included changing his surname from “Cu” to “Santos,” correcting his nationality from “Chinese” to “Filipino,” amending his filiation from “legitimate” to “illegitimate,” and modifying his mother’s civil status from “married” to “single.”
The petition was filed against the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, National Statistics Office, and all persons purportedly affected by the corrections.
The Office of the Solicitor General was also notified in the process.

Eduardo’s Election of Philippine Citizenship and his Oath of Allegiance.
A notarized affidavit of his mother, Juana Santos, attesting that she was not legally married to his Chinese father, Nga Cu Lay, thereby establishing his illegitimate status.
Documents proving his exercise of suffrage, judicial affidavit, and his original COLB.
Death certificates of both his mother and his father, which provided context on the status of his parents.
Other documents evidencing his consistent use of the surname “Santos.”

Additional evidence included a purported Certificate of No Marriage (CENOMAR) for Juana Santos, introduced later in the proceedings to support the claim regarding her marital status.

On February 22, 2013, the RTC ordered the necessary corrections in Eduardo’s COLB, directing the correction of his surname, filiation, nationality, and his mother’s civil status.
The RTC found that Eduardo had complied with the notice and publication requirements under Rule 108 and dismissed the prosecutor’s objections regarding hearsay and self-serving evidence.

On April 20, 2015, the CA partially reversed the RTC’s ruling by declaring Eduardo a Filipino citizen but maintained that his surname should remain “Cu” and his filiation be recorded as “legitimate.”
The CA relied on the authority of the COLB as strong evidence for the presumption of legitimacy, emphasizing that, once the prescriptive periods under the Family Code had lapsed, the legal presumption could not be overcome by the evidence submitted.
The CA rejected the peso given to Juana Santos’ affidavit as it purportedly overstepped the exclusive rights of the father or his heirs to contest legitimacy.

A Resolution dated October 13, 2015, denied Eduardo’s motion for reconsideration.
In his petition for review (the present case), Eduardo reiterated that the CA erred by not giving credence to his mother’s affidavit and attaching evidence (including the CENOMAR) to prove that no valid marriage existed between his parents.

Whether Eduardo may impugn the presumption of legitimacy contained in his COLB and correct substantive entries regarding his surname, filiation, nationality, and his mother’s civil status under Rule 108.
Whether the petition for correction, which involves substantial changes rather than mere clerical errors, was properly filed given the procedural requirements of impleading all interested parties.
The propriety of using the affidavit of Juana Santos as evidence to demonstrate that his parents were not legally married, thereby establishing his illegitimate status.

Was Eduardo entitled to correct the substantial entries in his COLB—namely, the change of his surname, his nationality, his filiation, and his mother’s civil status—under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court?
Did the petitioner comply with the mandatory procedural requirements, including the complete impleading of all persons who have or claim any interest affected by the corrections?
Can the notarized affidavit of Juana Santos, along with the evidence submitted, suffice to overturn the presumption of legitimacy established by the COLB?