Title
Supreme Court
Braza vs. City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City
Case
G.R. No. 181174
Decision Date
Dec 4, 2009
Ma. Cristina sought to correct Patrick’s birth record, nullify Pablo and Lucille’s marriage, and impugn Patrick’s legitimacy via Rule 108. SC ruled such issues require adversarial action, not a special proceeding.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 181174)

Petitioners

Ma. Cristina Torres Braza, Paolo Josef T. Braza and Janelle Ann T. Braza.

Respondents

City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City; Patrick Alvin Titular Braza represented by his guardians Leon, Cecilia and Lucille Titular.

Key Dates

  • January 4, 1978: Marriage of Ma. Cristina and Pablito.
  • May 8, 1978; June 4, 1980; June 7, 1983: Births of Paolo Josef, Gian Carlo and Janelle Ann.
  • January 1, 1996: Birth of Patrick Alvin Celestial Titular.
  • January 13, 1997: Late registration and acknowledgment by Pablito.
  • April 22, 1998: Marriage of Pablito and Lucille (allegedly bigamous).
  • December 23, 2005: Petition to correct Patrick’s birth entries filed.
  • September 6, 2007: Trial court dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
  • November 29, 2007: Denial of motion for reconsideration.
  • December 4, 2009: Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution.
  • Rule 108, Rules of Court (Cancellation or Correction of Entries).
  • Civil Code, Art. 412 (judgment required to change registry entries).
  • A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (family courts jurisdiction).
  • Family Code, Art. 171 (actions to impugn filiation).

Background

Petitioners discovered that during the repatriation wake of Pablito (d. 2002), Lucille introduced Patrick as her and Pablito’s child. They secured Patrick’s birth certificate showing late registration, paternal acknowledgment and legitimation by the 1998 marriage of Lucille and Pablito. Believing that marriage bigamous on account of Ma. Cristina’s existing union rendered Patrick illegitimate, they sought correction of Patrick’s registry entries, DNA testing and declaration of nullity of legitimation.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a Rule 108 proceeding cannot annul marriages, impugn legitimacy or order DNA tests, which require adversarial action. The trial court denied reconsideration, prompting petitioners’ review to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether a special proceeding under Rule 108 may include nullification of a marriage, impugn a child’s legitimacy or compel DNA testing as incidental to correcting registry entries.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Court affirmed that Rule 108 and Civil Code Article 412 permit only the cancellation or correction of clerical, typographical or otherwise innocuous errors in the civil registry. Substantial alterations—such as nullifying a marriage, questioning a child’s filiation or ordering genetic testing—must be raised in adversarial proceedings before a family court.

Jurisdictional Scope of Rule 108

Rule 108 proceedings address errors “visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding,” including simple name misspellings or factual misstatements. They do not confer authority to resolve marital nullity or legitimacy disputes, which fall under separate statutory schemes.

Governing Remedies for Marital Nullity and Filiation

Actions to declare a marriage void or to impugn a child’s legitimacy are governed by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (requiring family court filing) and Family Code Article 171, respectively

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.