Case Summary (G.R. No. 195956)
Petitioner and Relief Sought
The petitioners filed a verified Petition for Adoption of Karen with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City on May 26, 2005, seeking a judgment declaring Karen their legitimate and legal heir and directing the appropriate civil registrars to effect the necessary corrections to her birth record.
RTC of Marikina City: Judgment Granting Adoption (June 27, 2006)
On June 27, 2006, the RTC of Marikina City granted the petition, finding that adoption would promote Karen’s general welfare. The dispositive portion declared Karen legitimate and legal heir of the petitioners, ordered her name changed to Karen Licerio Borromeo, and directed the adopters to submit certified copies of the decree of adoption and certificate of finality to the City Civil Registrar of Marikina City and directed the City Civil Registrar of Quezon City to rectify and annotate the original certificate of birth, issue a new certificate without notation, seal the original certificate, and submit proof of compliance. The RTC’s ruling was grounded on Section 16 of Republic Act No. 8552 (New Rules on Adoption) and Article 37 of P.D. No. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code).
Attempted Implementation and Discovery of Duplicative Registration
When the petitioners attempted to implement the June 27, 2006 decision at the Office of the Civil Registrar (OCR) of Quezon City on July 12, 2006, they were informed that Karen’s birth had been registered in both the OCR of Quezon City and the OCR of Caloocan City. They were advised that the registration in Caloocan would have to be cancelled for the Quezon City OCR to effect the RTC of Marikina City’s directives.
RTC of Caloocan City: Correction, Not Cancellation (May 23, 2012)
The petitioners filed a Petition for Cancellation before the RTC of Caloocan City. On May 23, 2012, that court issued an order directing correction of entries in Karen’s Certificate of Live Birth registered in Caloocan (Registry No. 99-25361): (a) correct the name entry from Karen Licerio Torres to Karen Licerio; and (b) correct the parents’ marital status entry from a stated marriage date to “not married.” The RTC of Caloocan City did not cancel the Caloocan registration as the petitioners had prayed.
Motion to Correct in Marikina and RTC of Marikina’s Denials (2013)
Because the June 27, 2006 decision expressly addressed the OCR of Quezon City and could not be executed by Caloocan’s OCR, the petitioners filed a Motion to Correct the June 27, 2006 decision (seeking insertion of “City Civil Registrar of Caloocan City” in lieu of “City Civil Registrar of Quezon City”) in February 2013. The RTC of Marikina City denied the Motion to Correct by Order dated May 23, 2013, ruling that its June 27, 2006 decision had long become final and executory and thus immutable; it found none of the recognized exceptions to immutability (no clerical error, no nunc pro tunc entry, no void judgment), and noted that the issue of duplicative registration was not previously presented to the court. A Motion for Reconsideration was denied on July 1, 2013.
Petition for Review, Parties’ Arguments, and Procedural Posture
The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court dated August 1, 2013, arguing (inter alia) that adoption and correction of entries are special proceedings and that Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court does not apply to special proceedings, and that a final judgment may be modified to harmonize it with justice and the facts. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) concurred that adoption and registry correction are special proceedings and that Section 6, Rule 39 does not apply, but suggested that another suit or action to examine the Caloocan registration might be appropriate. The petitioners filed a reply on November 18, 2014.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
The dispositive issue was whether the RTC of Marikina City erred in denying the petitioners’ Motion to Correct the June 27, 2006 decision on the ground of the doctrine of immutability of judgment, given the subsequent discovery of duplicative registration and the Caloocan RTC’s corrective (not cancellatory) order.
Supreme Court Ruling: Exception to Immutability Applies
The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious and held that one of the recognized exceptions to the doctrine of immutability of judgment applied. The Court reiterated the doctrine that a final judgment is generally immutable, but cited the four exceptions as discussed in Antonio Mendoza v. Fil-Homes Realty Development Corp.: (1) correction of clerical errors; (2) nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice; (3) void judgments; and (4) instances where circumstances transpire after finality rendering execution unjust or inequitable. The Court emphasized the fourth exception with support from City of Butuan v. Ortiz, which permits modification where facts occurring after finality render execution unjust or impossible.
Application of the Fourth Exception to the Present Facts
Applying the fourth exception, the Court observed that after the June 27, 2006 decision became final, the petitioners discovered the duplicative registration that prevented the Quezon City OCR from enforcing the Marikina decision. The subsequent RTC of Caloocan order correcting entries (instead of cancelling the Caloocan registration) made enforcement of the Marikina decree impossible as drafted. Because the OSG itself recognized that the propriety of the adoption was final and unalterable, the remaining dispute concerned only which OCR should implement the decree. The Court concluded that the new circumstances justified invoking the exception to immutability to achieve substantial justice.
Procedural Relief and Limitations on Marikina RTC’s Power
The Supreme Court rejected the RTC of Marikina City’s view that it lacked competence to address the proper OCR or that the dispositive portion could not be corrected. The Court
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 195956)
Relevant Case Information
- Citation: 843 Phil. 647, Second Division, G.R. No. 208005, November 21, 2018.
- Title/Subject: RE: ADOPTION OF KAREN HERICO LICERIO.
- Petitioners: Joel H. Borromeo and Carmen H. Borromeo (also referenced as Carmen H. Licerio in parts of the record).
- Nature of Petition: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking nullification of RTC Marikina Orders dated May 23, 2013 and July 1, 2013.
- Ponent/Author of Decision: Justice A. Reyes, Jr.
- Concurring Justices: Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and J. Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
- Administrative Note: One Justice designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2587, dated August 28, 2018.
Parties and Factual Antecedents
- Petitioners are husband and wife, Joel H. Borromeo and Carmen H. Licerio (spelled in record both as Carmen H. Borromeo and Carmen H. Licerio), with two legitimate minor children, Kristian Andrew and Karl Joseph.
- Petitioners sought to jointly adopt Karen Herico Licerio (Karen), who is the minor illegitimate daughter of petitioner Carmen.
- A verified Petition for Adoption of Karen was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City on May 26, 2005.
RTC Marikina — June 27, 2006 Decision (Dispositive Portion)
- The RTC of Marikina City granted the petition for adoption on June 27, 2006, finding that adoption would promote Karen’s general welfare.
- Dispositive directives included:
- Declaring the minor Karen Herico Licerio as the legitimate and legal heir of petitioners Joel H. Borromeo and Carmen L. Borromeo.
- Declaring that the minor shall henceforth be known as Karen Licerio Borromeo.
- Ordering the adopters to submit a certified true copy of the decree of adoption and the certificate of finality to the City Civil Registrar of Marikina City within thirty (30) days from receipt of the certificate of finality.
- Ordering the City Civil Registrar of Quezon City to: a) rectify and annotate on the original certificate of birth the decree of adoption within thirty (30) days from receipt of the certificate of finality; b) issue a certificate of birth of the minor Karen Licerio Borromeo which shall not bear any notation that it is new or amended; c) seal the original certificate of birth in the civil registry records and provide that it can only be opened upon order of the Court; d) submit proof of compliance with the foregoing within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decree.
- The decision directed that copies be furnished to the City Civil Registrar of Marikina City and the National Statistics Office for record purposes.
Post-Decision Events: Duplicate Registration and Attempted Implementation
- On July 12, 2006, when petitioners sought to implement the June 27, 2006 Decision at the Office of the Civil Registrar (OCR) of Quezon City, they were informed that Karen’s birth had been registered in both Quezon City and Caloocan City.
- Petitioners were advised that, to implement the RTC Marikina decision, the registration in the OCR of Caloocan City must be cancelled.
- Following that advice, petitioners filed a Petition for Cancellation in the RTC of Caloocan City (date of filing in source not specified).
RTC Caloocan Ruling (May 23, 2012)
- The RTC of Caloocan City, by Order dated May 23, 2012, did not cancel the Certificate of Live Birth of Karen but ordered corrections to the entries of the certificate registered under Registry No. 99-25361:
- Entry No. 1: change the name from Karen Licerio Torres to Karen Licerio.
- Entry No. 12: change the date and place of marriage of parents entered as January 7, 1992 to reflect the words “not married.”
- The RTC of Caloocan City’s Order did not cancel the birth registration as petitioners had prayed.
Motion to Correct and RTC Marikina Orders (May 23, 2013; July 1, 2013)
- Petitioners filed a Motion to Correct the June 27, 2006 Decision on February 19, 2013, seeking to insert the phrase “City Civil Registrar of Caloocan City” in lieu of “City Civil Registrar of Quezon City.”
- On May 23, 2013, the RTC of Marikina City issued an Order denying the Motion to Correct for lack of merit.
- RTC Marikina held the June 27, 2006 Decision had become final and executory and thus immutable and unalterable.
- The court found none of the three (3) exceptions to immutability applied: (1) no clerical error to correct; (2) no nunc pro tunc entry; and (3) no void judgment to correct.
- The RTC observed that the issue of the alleged duplicitous registration was not previously presented before it; therefore the requested change could not be a nunc pro tunc amendment.
- The RTC stated that it had no competence to rule upon the proper OCR to implement its decision, noting the evidence showed Karen was born in Quezon City and the June 27, 2006 Decision properly directed the OCR of Quezon City to implement the adoption decree.
- Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied in an Order dated July 1, 2013.
Present Petition and Parties’ Arguments Before the Supreme Court
- Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari dated August 1, 2013, challenging the RTC Marikina Orders of May 23 and July 1, 2013.
- Petitioners’ principal contentions included:
- Adoption and correction of entries in the civil registry are special proceedings.
- Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court does not apply to special proceedings.
- A final judgment may be mod