Case Summary (G.R. No. 222095)
Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court
Barcelote filed a petition in the RTC for cancellation of the two certificates. The court allowed ex parte presentation of evidence. Ruling that Tinitigan’s unilateral registration violated Section 5 of Act No. 3753 and that the certificates incorrectly bore the father’s surname—contrary to Article 176 of the Family Code—the RTC ordered their cancellation for being legally infirm and not in the children’s best interests.
Reversal by the Court of Appeals
The CA reversed, finding that: (1) birth registrations by a attending midwife and the father complied with Act No. 3753 and did not require the mother’s consent; (2) under RA 9255, illegitimate children may bear the father’s surname upon express recognition via the civil register; and (3) Barcelote failed to prove the entries false or to establish true personal circumstances. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Barcelote contended that the CA erred by:
- Failing to cancel the certificates given the Family Code’s mandate that illegitimate children use their mother’s surname and parental authority resides with the mother.
- Misconstruing Act No. 3753’s requirement of a joint signature or mother’s signature for illegitimate birth registration.
- Ignoring the children’s best interests.
- Erroneously dismissing the petition instead of treating it under Rule 108 for correction of entries.
Analysis on Surname and Filiation Recognition
Article 176 (pre-RA 9255) mandates that illegitimate children “shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother.” RA 9255 inserted a permissive clause (“may use the surname of their father”) contingent on express recognition in the civil register or private/public admission, subject to procedural requirements under its IRR (including execution of an Affidavit to Use the Surname of the Father for specified age groups). The Supreme Court held that, absent compliance with RA 9255 and its IRR, the mandatory mother’s surname provision applies.
Analysis on Validity of Birth Registration
Under Section 5, Act No. 3753, the birth certificate of an illegitimate child “shall be signed and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant or only the mother if the father refuses.” This mandatory requirement ensures accurate identification of parents and reflects maternal custody and parental authority over an illegitimate chi
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 222095)
Procedural History
- Petition for cancellation of two certificates of live birth filed by petitioner Jonna Karla Baguio Barcelote before the RTC, Branch 15, Davao City (SPC. PROC. No. 12,007-12).
- RTC rendered decision on 28 February 2013 ordering cancellation of Registry Nos. 2008-21709 and 2011-28329.
- Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 03223-MIN reversed R TC decision on 5 March 2015 and denied reconsideration on 3 December 2015.
- Petition for review under Rule 45 filed with the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s reversal and denial of reconsideration.
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner bore two children out of wedlock with Ricky O. Tinitigan:
• First child born 24 June 2008, named Yohan Grace Barcelote (later Avee Kynna Noelle Barcelote Tinitigan in subject birth certificate).
• Second child born 24 August 2011, named Joshua Miguel Barcelote (later Yuhares Jan Barcelote Tinitigan in subject birth certificate). - Both births were initially unregistered to avoid personal and legal consequences.
- Late registrations filed in Santa Cruz, Davao del Sur, approved as no prior records existed in NSO.
- NSO subsequently discovered two existing certificates of live birth in Davao City (Registry Nos. 2008-21709 and 2011-28329) registered by Tinitigan as informant, with children’s surname “Tinitigan” and without mother’s signature.
RTC Ruling
- Found that Tinitigan registered the births unilaterally, without petitioner-mother’s knowledge or consent, in violation of Sec. 5, Act No. 3753.
- Held entries void and illegal under original Art. 176, Family Code: illegitimate children must use mother’s surname.
- Determined best interest of children favors mother’s surname and correct personal circumstances.
- Ordered cancellation of both subject birth certificates (Registry Nos. 2008-21709 and 2011-28329).
CA Ruling
- Upheld