Title
Republic vs. Lao
Case
G.R. No. 205218
Decision Date
Feb 10, 2020
Children of naturalized Filipino parents sought correction of birth certificates to reflect parents' Filipino nationality; Supreme Court affirmed RTC rulings, allowing amendments.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205218)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Births: Jon Nicholas (22 Nov 1966), Winston Brian (3 Dec 1968), Christopher Troy (19 Mar 1973). Parents married: 14 Oct 1962. Father’s naturalization: Certificate of Naturalization and Oath of Allegiance issued 15 June 1976 under PD No. 923; mother’s Certificate of Naturalization and Oath of Allegiance issued 24 Jan 1979. Trial court decisions granting correction of parental nationality in birth certificates: Manila RTC decision (Jan 2, 2013) for Winston Brian and Christopher Troy; Quezon City RTC decision (Mar 13, 2013) for Jon Nicholas. Petitions for Review on Certiorari filed directly with the Supreme Court by the Republic: G.R. No. 205218 (filed Mar 4, 2013) and G.R. No. 207075 (filed Jun 25, 2013), consolidated by the Court.

Facts Relevant to the Dispute

All respondents were born and raised in the Philippines, attended Philippine schools, married Filipino citizens, and raised families in the Philippines. Their birth certificates initially listed both parents’ nationality as “Chinese.” The parents, Lao Kian Ben and Chia Kong Liong, later acquired Philippine citizenship by decree under PD No. 923 and took their oaths of allegiance. Respondents petitioned under Rule 108 to correct the parental nationality entries in their respective certificates of live birth from “Chinese” to “Filipino.”

Trial Court Proceedings — Manila (Winston Brian and Christopher Troy)

Manila RTC set petitions for hearing and required publication under Rule 108; publication and notice requirements were complied with. The Office of the Solicitor General appeared via the City Prosecutor; the local civil registrar and the public prosecutor were notified. After adversarial proceedings including cross-examination, the Manila RTC held that Rule 108 applies to both clerical and substantial errors and that respondents had proven the requisite facts (legitimacy, parents’ naturalization while respondents were minors, and existing “Chinese” entries). The court ordered marginal annotation and transmission of corrected records to the National Statistics Office.

Trial Court Proceedings — Quezon City (Jon Nicholas)

Quezon City RTC likewise required publication and service under Rule 108; jurisdictional facts were proven. The court treated the change in parental nationality as a substantial entry necessitating adversarial proceedings. Finding the parents had been naturalized and that the birth certificate entries were no longer true, the court ordered correction by marginal annotation and transmission of the decision to relevant offices.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the nationality entries of respondents’ parents in their birth certificates may be changed to “Filipino,” although the parents were Chinese nationals at the time of respondents’ births. 2) Whether an adjudicative proceeding before the Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN) was required to determine respondents’ own qualification to acquire Filipino citizenship before the parental nationality entries in the birth certificates could be changed.

Republic’s Position

The Republic argued that citizenship is determined at the time of birth and that the parental nationality entries accurately reflected the parents’ status at respondents’ births. Therefore, no error existed to correct. Alternatively, if a change is permissible, the Republic contended that the change should follow an appropriate proceeding under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of PD No. 836 in relation to PD No. 923 (i.e., proceedings before the SCN) to determine whether respondents themselves are qualified to be naturalized as Filipinos.

Respondents’ Position

Respondents maintained Rule 108 provided the proper procedure for correcting the civil register, including substantial entries such as parental nationality, and relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Co v. The Civil Register, where marginal annotation of parental naturalization on children’s birth certificates was allowed. They argued that Letter of Instructions No. 270 is in pari materia with Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, thereby extending naturalization effects to minor children when the qualifying conditions are met. They asserted they satisfied the essential facts (father naturalized under LOI No. 270/PD No. 923; birth in the Philippines; minority at the time of parental naturalization) and that no separate SCN proceeding was required for the children.

Legal Analysis — Nature and Purpose of the Birth Certificate and Civil Register

The Court reiterated that the certificate of live birth is a vital record and instrument of individual identity, and that entries generally correspond to facts at the time of birth (date, sex, nationality of infant, parentage, civil status, place of birth). Nevertheless, Articles 407 and 412 of the Civil Code permit acts or events concerning civil status occurring after birth to be recorded in the civil register, provided a judicial order is obtained for any change or correction. Rule 108 was approved by the Court as the procedure to implement Article 412 and to correct entries in the civil register.

Reliance on Co v. The Civil Register (precedent)

The Court relied on Co, where parents’ naturalization under LOI No. 270 led the Court to read Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 into LOI No. 270 as pari materia, thereby extending naturalization effects to minor children. Co held that Rule 108 was the appropriate remedy to annotate the birth certificates to reflect parental naturalization. The present facts were found analogous to Co: parental naturalization under LOI No. 270/PD No. 923, children born in the Philippines, and minority at the time of parental naturalization.

Application of Legal Principles to the Present Cases

The Court found respondents proved the ultimate facts required for correction under Rule 108: legitimate filial relationship to naturalized parents; parental naturalization and oath-taking; and birth certificates still listing parental nationality as “Chinese.” Given the Civil Code, Rule 108, and Co, the Court concluded that the trial courts properly conducted adversarial proceedings for substantial entry correction and correctly ordered marginal annotations reflecting the parents’ nationality as “Filipino.”

Naturalization Procedure and Whethe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms