BRAZA v.

CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR

G.R. No. 181174
Dec. 4, 2009
Carpio Morales, J.
Tiangco
Cristina,
Paolo
and
Janelle
Braza
petitioners
responden City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City; (minor) Patrick Titular Braza as represented by
ts his mother Lucille Titular

summary Petitioner as first wife of the deceased, seeks to correct the birth certificate of
her husbands alleged child. She wants to annul the marriage between her
dead husband and respondent, to impugn the legitimacy of the child, and to
subject him to DNA testing. The court held that under Rule 108, only
corrections of entries because of clerical errors are permissible. Validity of
marriage as well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct
action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attack.

facts of the case

Ma. Cristina and Pablo Braza were married on Jan. 4, 1978. They had three children namely
Josef, Janelle and Gian. However Pablo died on April 2002 in a vehicular accident in Indonesia.
During his wake, the respondent Lucille introduced her son Patrick as Pablos child.
Naturally Ma. Cristina inquired as to the veracity of Lucilles claim. She acquired a copy of
Patricks birth certificate from the Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City. It reflects that the child was
born on Jan. 1, 1996 but was registered late a year after. It has an annotation wherein Pablo
acknowledge the child as his, and that the child was legitimated by a subsequent
marriage of his parents on April 1998.
Because of her findings, she filed a petition to correct the entries in the birth record of
Patrick with RTC of Himamaylan Negros Occidental. Her contention is that Patrick could not
have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of Lucille and Pablo because such is
bigamous (their marriage was subsisting at that time). She prayed for the correction of Patricks
legitimation, acknowledgment of the father, and use of Braza as last name. She also asked that
Patrick be submitted to DNA testing (hindi niya talaga matanggap na niloko siya ng asawa niya)
and to declare Lucille and Pablos marriage as bigamous.
Respondent filed MTD alleging that a special proceeding for correction of entry, the court does
not have jurisdiction to annul her marriage, impugn legitimacy and order DNA testing. Why?
Because the court is not acting as a family court. These should be ventilated in an ordinary
action.
RTC granted MTD. Petitioners filed MR but was denied so they filed this present action.

issue

WON RTC has jurisdiction to annul the marriage of respondent and impugn legitimacy of
respondents child in a petition to correct entries in local civil register? NO.

ratio

Petitioners: the court may pass upon the validity of marriage and legitimacy of child in an
action to correct entries in civil registrar. As basis, they cited Cario v. Carino, Lee v.
CA and Republic v. Kho, alleging that even substantial errors, such as those sought to be
corrected in the present case, can be the subject of a petition under Rule 108.
SC: Nope. In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108, the trial court has no
jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation.Under these rules, only
correction of clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil
registry may be allowed.
1

A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; an error
made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing, or a harmless change such as a
correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the
parent. Substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only in adversarial
proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due process is properly
observed.
As applied: the petitioners seek to nullify the marriage of respondent and Pablo and impugn
their childs filiation and to subject him to DNA testing. They contend that these are merely
incidental to the main petition which is correction of entry under Rule 108. However the court
held that the applicable rule is under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC Art. 171 of the Family Code, the
petition should be filed in a Family Court as expressly provided in said Code.
Petitioners: How about the cases in support of my theory?
SC: Nope. They dont apply. Validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be
questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral
attack. The cases cited are not applicable.
Cario v. Cario was an action filed by a second wife against the first wife for the return of one-half of the death benefits
received by the first after the death of the husband. Since the second wife contracted marriage with the husband while the latters
marriage to the first wife was still subsisting, the Court ruled on the validity of the two marriages, it being essential to the
determination of who is rightfully entitled to the death benefits.
In Lee v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that contrary to the contention that the petitions filed by the therein petitioners
before the lower courts were actions to impugn legitimacy, the prayer was not to declare that the petitioners are illegitimate children
of Keh Shiok Cheng as stated in their records of birth but to establish that they are not the latters children, hence, there was nothing
to impugn as there was no blood relation at all between the petitioners and Keh Shiok Cheng. That is why the Court ordered the
cancellation of the name of Keh Shiok Cheng as the petitioners mother and the substitution thereof with Tiu Chuan who is their
biological mother. Thus, the collateral attack was allowed and the petition deemed as adversarial proceeding contemplated under
Rule 108.
In Republic v. Kho, it was the petitioners themselves who sought the correction of the entries in their respective birth records
to reflect that they were illegitimate and that their citizenship is Filipino, not Chinese, because their parents were never legally
married. Again, considering that the changes sought to be made were substantial and not merely innocuous, the Court, finding the
proceedings under Rule 108 to be adversarial in nature, upheld the lower courts grant of the petition.