G.R. No. 222095 - IN RE: Yuhares Jan Barcelote Tinitigan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 222095)

Relevant Dates and Procedural Milestones

Key factual dates: births alleged in 2008 and 2011; petitioner filed an amended petition on 20 September 2012. Trial court (RTC, Davao City, Branch 15) rendered a decision on 28 February 2013 ordering cancellation of the subject birth certificates. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision on 5 March 2015 and denied reconsideration on 3 December 2015. The Supreme Court granted review and issued the dispositive decision on 7 August 2017.

Factual Background

Petitioner gave birth to two children out of wedlock with Ricky O. Tinitigan in 2008 and 2011. The petitioner initially did not register the births to avoid social stigma; she later sought late registration in Santa Cruz, Davao del Sur, and obtained late registration certificates (Registry Nos. 2012-1344 and 2012-1335). Upon submission to the National Statistics Office, petitioner learned that the Local Civil Registrar of Davao City already had two certificates of live birth for children with the same mother and years of birth, recorded under the father’s surname and listing Ricky O. Tinitigan as the informant. The subject certificates claimed births at EUP Family Care Clinic, Holy Cross Agdao Davao City, and bore the father’s signature as informant; the petitioner alleges she did not know of, participate in, or sign those registrations and that the entries contain erroneous personal data.

Relief Sought and Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioner filed a petition before the RTC for cancellation of the two certificates of live birth as registered by Tinitigan. After jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied, the RTC allowed petitioner to present evidence ex parte. Petitioner testified that the registrations occurred without her knowledge or signature and asserted that the subject certificates contained incorrect entries.

RTC Ruling

The RTC granted the petition and ordered cancellation of the subject certificates. The RTC found the registrations legally infirm because they were made unilaterally by Tinitigan without the mother’s knowledge or signature, in violation of Section 5 of Act No. 3753. The RTC also held the entries were void and illegal because illegitimate children shall use the mother’s surname under Article 176 of the Family Code; the RTC considered use of the father’s surname contrary to the children’s best interests and found discrepancies between the subject certificates and the true personal circumstances of the children.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. It held that the registrations effected by the father and certified by a registered midwife were valid under Act No. 3753 and did not require the mother’s consent. The CA relied on RA 9255 (amending Article 176) to conclude that the children could validly bear the father’s surname if their filiation was recorded in the civil register. The CA further held that petitioner failed to prove falsity of the entries or to establish that her late registration reflected the true personal circumstances of the children. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petitioner challenged the CA’s noncancellation of the certificates on substantive and procedural grounds, asserting: (1) Article 176 of the Family Code mandates that illegitimate children use the mother’s surname and remain under her parental authority, so the mother’s choice of names should prevail; (2) the CA erred in concluding the subject certificates reflected true personal circumstances; (3) Act No. 3753 requires that birth certificates of illegitimate children be signed and sworn to by the mother, making unilateral registration by the father void; and (4) alternatively, that the CA should have treated the petition as one for correction under Rule 108 rather than dismissing it.

Governing Legal Framework

The Supreme Court analyzed: Article 176 of the Family Code (as amended by RA 9255), Act No. 3753 (Civil Registry Law) Section 5, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Act No. 3753, the IRR of RA 9255 (including requirements for Affidavit to Use the Surname of the Father and rules on recognition), and procedural rules for cancellation/correction of civil registry entries (Rule 108). The Court also applied relevant precedents cited in the record (e.g., Grande v. Antonio; Calimag v. Heirs of Macapaz; Babiera v. Catotal; Briones v. Miguel).

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Surname and Recognition

The Court emphasized that illegitimate children born after 3 August 1988 are generally to use the mother’s surname under Article 176; RA 9255 permits the use of the father’s surname only upon proper recognition in accordance with law and IRR. The Court interpreted the statutory language: the term "shall" in the provision that illegitimate children shall use the mother's surname is mandatory; by contrast, the permissive "may" in RA 9255 confers discretion to use the father's surname only upon compliance with the recognition regime (e.g., properly executed Affidavit to Use the Surname of the Father or other requirements in the IRR). The Court rejected the CA’s conclusion that the registrations constituted valid recognition of filiation by the father where legal formalities were not observed.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Mandatory Signature Requirement and Registration Formalities

The Court relied on Section 5 of Act No. 3753, which expressly provides that in the case of an illegitimate child the birth certificate "shall be signed and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant or only the mother if the father refuses." The Court treated that provision as lex specialis governing registration of illegitimate children and held it mandatory. The Court noted the IRR imposes on the civil registrar the duty to ensure that the certificate of live birth is properly and completely filled out and to require correction or completion when entries are incomplete or incorrect. Because the subject certificates lacked the mother's signature and did not conform to the mandatory statutory scheme, the registrations were not valid. The Court further explained that the mother must sign because she possesses parental authority and custody over an illegitimate child, and her signature helps prevent false attribution of parentage.

Reliance on Precedent and Doctrinal Points

The Supreme Court drew from prior decisions to reinforce its interpretation: Calimag stood for the proposition that the declaration of a parent is sufficient for a legitimate child’

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 222095)

The Case

Petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Rollo, pp. 10-32) assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 5 March 2015 and Resolution dated 3 December 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No. 03223-MIN.
The CA decision reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 15, SPC. PROC. No. 12,007-12, decision dated 28 February 2013.
Supreme Court opinion penned by Justice Carpio, with concurrence by Peralta, Mendoza, Leonen, and Martires, JJ.
Case citation: 815 Phil. 664; G.R. No. 222095; decided 07 August 2017.

The Facts

Petitioner: Jonna Karla Baguio Barcelote (Barcelote). Respondents: Republic of the Philippines, Ricky O. Tinitigan (Tinitigan), and the Local Civil Registrar, Davao City.
Barcelote alleged she bore a child out of wedlock with Tinitigan on 24 June 2008 at a relative’s residence in Sibulan, Santa Cruz, Davao del Sur, and named the child Yohan Grace Barcelote; she did not register that birth because she did not give birth in a hospital and to avoid humiliation and possible criminal charges.
She alleged she bore another child with Tinitigan on 24 August 2011, named Joshua Miguel Barcelote, and likewise did not register that birth for similar reasons.
Barcelote lost contact with Tinitigan, returned to Davao City, and later sought registration when her first child needed a birth certificate for school admission.
The Local Civil Registrar of Santa Cruz approved late registrations of Yohan Grace Barcelote and Joshua Miguel Barcelote, with Registry Nos. 2012-1344 and 2012-1335, respectively, after proof that the National Statistics Office (NSO) had no record.
Upon submission to the NSO, Barcelote was informed that two certificates of live birth already existed in the NSO with the same mother’s name and years of birth, registered in Davao City by Tinitigan.
Subject birth certificates in the Local Civil Registrar of Davao City:
- Registry No. 2008-21709: Name — Avee Kyna Noelle Barcelote Tinitigan; Date of Birth — June 4, 2008; Place of Birth — EUP Family Care Clinic, Holy Cross Agdao Davao City; Informant — Ricky O. Tinitigan.
- Registry No. 2011-28329: Name — Yuhares Jan Barcelote Tinitigan; Date of Birth — August 14, 2011; Place of Birth — EUP Family Care Clinic, Holy Cross Agdao Davao City; Informant — Ricky O. Tinitigan. (The August 14, 2011 date was omitted in the Amended Petition but is stated in the Original Petition dated 23 May 2012.)
Barcelote filed a petition in the RTC for cancellation of those subject birth certificates on the ground that they were registered by Tinitigan without her knowledge and contained erroneous entries.
Barcelote was allowed to present evidence ex parte; she testified reiterating allegations and asserting lack of her signature and knowledge on the subject certificates and that they contained wrong entries, but she did not present further documentary evidence.

The Ruling of the RTC (28 February 2013)

The RTC granted Barcelote’s petition and ordered cancellation of the subject birth certificates (Avee Kyna Noelle Barcelote Tinitigan, Reg. No. 2008-21709; Yuhares Jan Barcelote Tinitigan, Reg. No. 2011-28329).
RTC findings:
- The subject birth certificates were registered unilaterally by Tinitigan without the knowledge and signature of the mother, in violation of Section 5 of Act No. 3753.
- The certificates contained void and illegal entries because the children used the surname of Tinitigan contrary to Article 176 of the Family Code, which states illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother.
- Using the father’s surname was deemed not in the best interest of the children because of the possibility that legitimate children or the wife might ask the illegitimate children to refrain from using the father’s surname.
- The subject certificates did not reflect the correct personal circumstances of the children due to glaring differences in names and vital information.
Dispositive language: petition granted; registration by Ricky Tinitigan at the Local Civil Registrar of Davao City without consent or knowledge of the mother ordered cancelled; directed civil registrar to cause the cancellation of the two certificates.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals (5 March 2015; MR denied 3 December 2015)

The CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
CA reasoning:
- Registrations effected by Tinitigan and certified by a registered midwife, Erlinda Padilla, were valid under Act No. 3753 and did not require the consent of Barcelote.
- Under RA 9255 (amending Article 176), illegitimate children can legally use the father’s surname if the father expressly recognized them through the record of birth appearing in the civil register; CA found this to be the situation because Barcelote admitted Tinitigan personally registered the births and affixed his surname.
- Barcelote failed to discharge the burden of proving the falsity of the entries in the subject birth certificates and did not adduce evidence that her late registrations reflected the true personal circumstances of the children.
CA dispositive: reversed RTC decision; the amended petition for cancellation is dismissed for lack of merit. Motion for reconsideration denied in the 3 December 2015 resolution.

Issues Raised by Petitioner

Primary issue: Whether the CA erred in not cancelling the certificates of live birth for Yuhares Jan Barcelote Tinitigan and Avee Kynna Barcelote Tinitigan.
- Sub-issue A: Under the Family Code, illegitimate children shall use the surname and be under the parental authority of their mother; the mother’s choice of names upon birth should prevail.
- Sub-issue B: The CA abused discretion by ruling the RTC had no basis in finding the certificates did not reflect the true and correct personal circumstances of the children.
- Sub-issue C: Misinterpretation of Act No. 3753 — for an illegitimate child, the birth certificate must be signed and sworn to by the mother; certificates not signed by Barcelote are void.
- Sub-issue D: Cancellation of the certificates registered by a married father who abandoned the illegitimate children is in the interest and welfare of the children.
Alternative issue: The CA erred in dismissing the petition on the procedural ground that Barcelote could have filed for correction of entries under Rule 108; petitioner contends the petition was filed under Rule 108 and complied with jurisdictional requirements and should have been treated at least as a petition for correction to order necessary corrections, especially of the children’s names.

The Ruling of the Supreme Court (Granting the Petition)

Holding: Petition granted. Supreme Court reversed and set aside the CA decisions, reinstated the RTC decision, and ordered cancellation of the two subject certificates of live birth (Reg. Nos. 2008