Case Summary (G.R. No. 153883)
Procedural Background
Respondent filed Special Proceedings No. 4933 under Rule 108, Rules of Court, to correct four entries in her birth registration. The Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte set a hearing, ordered publication of summons, and furnished notices to the Solicitor General and the Iligan City Civil Registrar.
Alleged Registry Errors
- Surname misspelled as “Yoa” instead of “Yua”
- Father’s name recorded as “Yo Diu To (Co Tian)” instead of “Yu Dioto (Co Tian)”
- Citizenship entered as “Chinese” instead of “Filipino”
- Legitimacy status marked “legitimate” instead of “illegitimate”
Evidence and Testimonies
Respondent introduced school records, her marriage certificate, and an NBI clearance demonstrating longstanding use of “Yua.” Her mother, Placida Anto, testified that she and respondent’s Chinese father never married; civil-registry certifications confirmed no record of their marriage. The Republic participated in examination but presented no contrary evidence.
Trial Court Decision
On February 22, 2000, the trial court granted the petition, directing the Iligan City Civil Registrar to correct the four entries as prayed.
Court of Appeals Affirmation
In CA-G.R. CV No. 68893 (May 29, 2002), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Republic then filed a petition for review under Rule 45.
Issues on Review
- Whether respondent failed to satisfy constitutional election requirements to change her citizenship.
- Whether an illegitimate child may lawfully use her father’s surname.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (nationality provisions)
– Rule 108, Rules of Court (civil-registry corrections)
– Commonwealth Act No. 625 (citizenship election for legitimate children)
– Commonwealth Act No. 142 (use of aliases)
– Civil Code, Article 376
– Jurisprudence on citizenship by birth and use of surnames
Citizenship Analysis
Election requirements under Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution and Commonwealth Act No. 625 apply solely to legitimate children of Filipino mothers and alien fathers. An illegitimate child of a Filipina mother acquires Philippine citizenship at birth and need not elect it at majority. Respondent’s voter registration at age 18 further confirms her Filipino citizenship.
Surname Analysis
Commonwealth Act No. 142 permits use of a name “by which [one] has been known since childhood” without judicially mandated name change. Respondent’s con
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 153883)
Facts
- Respondent Chule Y. Lim born on October 29, 1954 in Barangay Buru-an, Iligan City; birth originally registered in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and later transferred to Iligan City.
- Four erroneous entries appeared in both Kauswagan and Iligan City birth records:
- Surname recorded as “Ayoa” instead of correct “Ayua.”
- Father’s name recorded as “Yo Diu To (Co Tian)” instead of correct “Yu Dio To (Co Tian).”
- Nationality entered as “Chinese” instead of “Filipino.”
- Status marked “Yes” to “Legitimate” instead of “No” to indicate illegitimacy.
- Respondent consistently used the surname “Ayua” in school records and her marriage certificate; submitted an NBI clearance to corroborate.
- Mother Placida Anto, a Filipina from Camiguin, testified she never married Yu Dio To; civil-registry certifications from Iligan City and Kauswagan confirm absence of any marriage record between them.
Procedural History
- Respondent filed a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108, Sp. Proc. No. 4933, before the RTC of Lanao del Norte, Branch 4.
- RTC issued an order for hearing on December 27, 1999, directing publication of notice and service on the Solicitor General and the Iligan City Civil Registrar.
- At the hearing, the Republic, represented by the City Prosecutor, attended and cross-examined but offered no evidence.
- On February 22, 2000, RTC granted the petition, ordering correction of the four entries in respondent’s birth record.
- Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 68893); on May 29, 2002, the CA affirmed the RTC decision.
- Republic elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether the CA erred in directing the correction of respondent’s citizenship