Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. L-35316 October 26, 1987
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA and IMELDA MANGABAT SORENSEN, respondents,

FERNAN, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul the judgment of the then Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Branch III, Pasay City in Special Proceedings No. 2191-P the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby grants the herein petition, and the Local Civil
Registrar of Pasay City ordered, upon payment of the prescribed fees, to change the
word "American" into "Danish", the nationality of Bo Huage Sorensen appearing in
the birth certificate of his second son, Raymund Mangabat Sorensen [Exh. E-1] for
all purposes and effects. 1
In her verified petition filed before the lower court, private respondent Imelda Mangabat Sorensen
sought to correct and change the word "American" into the word "Danish" in the birth certificate of
her minor son, Raymund Mangabat Sorensen to reflect the true nationality of Bo Huage Sorensen,
her husband and the father of said minor child.
Upon compliance with the jurisdictional requirements set forth in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court on
cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry, the petition was set for hearing.
The evidence adduced in support of the petition is summarized in the lower court's decision as
follows:
Petitioner Imelda Mangabat Sorensen in substance testified that she is married to Bo
Huage Sorensen, a Danish citizen [Exhs. "C" and "C-1"] that which her Danish
husband, she begot two (2) children, namely: Launny and Raymund [Exhs. "D" and
"E"]; that the nationality of her husband was correctly stated as "Danish" [Exhs. "D"
and "D-1"] while in the birth certificate of her second son Raymund, her husband's
nationality was erroneously stated as "American" [Exhs. "E" and "E-1"].
Bo Huage Sorensen testified that he was born of a Danish father, on April 22, 1944,
at Vejle Denmark, and presented a certification issued by the Royal Danish
Consulate of Manila [Exhs. "E", "F-1"and "F-2"]; that on March 14, 1968, he was
married to petitioner Imelda Mangabat at Makati, Rizal [Exhs. "C" and "C-1"] that he

is still considered tourist and living with his wife and two sons at 122-A Mabuhay St.,
Palay City; that in the birth certificate of his first child, Launny Mangabat Sorensen,
his nationality as "Danish" was correctly stated, while in the birth certificate of his
second son, Raymund, his citizenship was erroneously entered as "American" [Exhs.
"D" and "E"]. 2
The Republic of the Philippines opposed the aforesaid petition and moved for the dismissal on the
ground that a correction of entry in the Civil Registry is allowed only when the same refers to mere
clerical errors or mistakes, but not to substantial changes affecting the civil status, nationality or
citizenship of the person concerned.
Thereafter, the court a quo opposed rendered the assailed decision ordering the Local Civil Registrar
of Pasay City as prayed for to make the necessary corrections in the entry of birth of minor Raymund
Mangabat Sorensen.
Upon denial of its motion for reconsideration, oppositor Republic of the Philippines appealed to this
Court, raising the sole issue of whether or not the challenged decision which involves the question of
citizenship is a matter which can legally be treated under the provision of Article 412 of the Civil
Code, in conjunction with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. 3
The petitioner Republic of the Philippines claims that the proceedings laid down in Article 412 of the
Civil Code, in relation to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, refer only to corrections of clerical errors or
alterations which are harmless and innocuos Since the petition under consideration concerns the
citizenship of private respondent's son, the same cannot be determined under the aforementioned
provisions of law. Citizenship is a grave and serious matter which should be threshed out only in an
appropriate suit, wherein not only the State but also all affected persons are made parties
defendants or respondents including the Commissioner of the then Bureau of Immigration who was
not summoned in the special proceedings below.
We are constrained to deny the instant petition for review. The issue now before Us has been
resolved in the well-written and exhaustive ponencia in Republic vs. Valencia 4 wherein the Court,
speaking through Justice Gutierrez, Jr., held in effect that proceedings under Article 412 of the Civil Code
and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court may either be summary or adversary in nature.
If the correction sought to be made in the civil register is clerical, then the procedure to be adopted is
summary. If the rectification affects the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed
substantial, and the procedure to be adopted is adversary. Thus We said in Republic vs. Valencia:
It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the correction of
clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or
citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as controverted, affirmative relief
cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in nature. However, it is also true that a
right in law may be enforced and a wrong may be remedied as long as
the appropriate remedy is used. This Court adheres to the principle that even
substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established
provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate
adversary proceeding...

What is meant by appropriate adversary proceeding?" Black's law Dictionary defines'

adversary proceeding' as follows:
One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex
parte application, one of which the party seeking relief has given legal
warning to the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to
contest it. ... 5
We further ruled in Republic vs. Valencia that if the procedural requirements provided in Sections 3,
4 and 5 of the Rules of Court are followed, the procedure ceases to be summary and becomes
litigious. Proceedings following the aforementioned sections may then be appropriate for the
correction of substantial matters in the civil registry. 6
In the earlier case of Republic vs. Medina, 7 which cited Chua Wee vs. Republic, 8 it was noted therein
that from the effectivity of the new Civil Code on August 30, 1950 until the promulgation of the Revised
Rules of Court on January 1, 1984, there was no rule of court prescribing the particular course of action
for securing judicial authorization to effect harmless changes or revisions in the civil register pursuant to
Article 412 of the Civil Code. Rule 108 of the 1964 Rules of Court provides for such a mode which should
however be limited solely to the implementation of Article 412, the substantive law on corrections in the
civil register.
From the 1954 case of Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic 9 to the case of Republic vs. Caparosso, 10 the consistent
rule laid down was that the revision of any entry pursuant to Article 412, as implemented by rule 108, referred to those changes that are
harmless and innocuos. In those cases, however, it was intimated that rectifications regarding nationality or citizenship in the civil register
may be undertaken as long as the appropriate remedy is used.

Going back to the case of Republic vs. Valencia, We postulated that the appropriate remedy may
well be a petition filed by way of special proceeding for the cancellation and/or correction of
substantial entries in the civil register with the requisite parties, notices, publications and the
proceedings to be taken thereafter pursuant to Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 108 because then the
proceedings will be adversary in character. We said:
Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the
cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are [1] the civil registrar,
and 121 all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby.
Upon the filing of the petition, it becomes the duty of the court to (1) issue an order
fixing the time and place for the hearing of the petition, and (2) cause the order for
the hearing to be published once a week for three [3] consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province. The following are likewise entitled
to oppose the petition: - ill the civil registrar, and [2] any person having or claiming
any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought.
If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for correction
and/or cancellation of entries in the record of birth even if filed and conducted under
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court can no longer be described as "summary".
There can be no doubt that when an opposition to the petition is filed either by the
Civil Registrar or any person having or claiming any interest in the entries sought to
be caancelled and/or corrected and the opposition is actively prosecuted, the
proceedings thereon become adversary proceedings. 11

In the present case, the records show that the Pasay City Local Civil Registrar and the Solicitor
General [as counsel for the Republic] were made parties to the petition for correction of entry in the
civil registry filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City branch. The proper notice was
published once a week for three [3] consecutive weeks in the Rizal Weekly Bulletin, a newspaper of
general circulation. The Republic appeared through a trial attorney of the Office of the Solicitor
General who was present and did not object to the presentation of evidence, although after the
hearing, the said trial attorney filed an opposition and/or motion to dismiss on the ground that the
correction being sought did riot refer to a mere clerical mistake but to a substantial change involving
the nationality of a person.
In the light of the foregoing which show compliance with Sections 2, 4 and 5 of Rule 108, the
proceedings undertaken in the lower court in Special Proceedings No. 2191-P were unmistakably
adversary, thus removing the initial apprehension of the State that "if the entries in the civil registrar
could corrected ... through a mere summary proceeding and not through an appropriate action
wherein all the parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented, we would set
wide open the door to fraud or other mischief, the consequence of which might be detrimental and
far-reaching." 12
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby denied for lack of merit and the
decision of the court a quo in Special Proceedings No. 2191-P is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1 Rollo, p. 30,
2 Rollo, pp. 28-29.
3 Article 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without a
judicial order. [Civil Code]
Rule 108. Cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry,.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 3. Parties When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is
sought the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim and, interest which would
be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.
Sec. 4. Notice and Publication. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, in an
order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable
notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also

cause the order to be published once a week for three 131 consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province.
Sec. 5. Opposition. The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any
interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen
[15] days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such
notice, file his opposition thereto.
... (Rules of Court]
4 G.R. No. L-32181, March5, 1986, 141 SCRA 462.
5 Id., at 468-469.
6 Id., at 4-14.
7 G.R. No. L-45030, December l5, 1982, 119 SCRA 270.
8 G.R. No. L-27731, April 21, 1971, 38 SCRA 409.
9 94 Phils. 321.
10 G.R. No. L-32746, August 31, 1981, 107 SCRA 67.
11 See note 4, supra at 473-474.
12 Republic vs. Medina, G.R. No. L-45030, December 15, 1982, 119 SCRA 270, 274

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-10869

November 28, 1958

In re: Petition to correct mistake in the Record of the Civil Registrar of Manila, relative to the
citizenship of MARIAN KATHLEEN BLACK; ANDREW BLACK, ET. AL., petitioners-appellants,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
Vicente M. Noche for appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Assistant Sol icitor General Florencio Villamor
for appellee.
PARAS, C.J.:

The petitioners filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition to correct the birth certificate of
their daughter, Marian Kathleen Black, who was born on April 15, 1955 in the City of Manila, by
changing the latter's citizenship appearing therein from "Canadian" to "American". The Solicitor
General filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the correction sought in the petition will substantially
affect the child's citizenship which is still controversial and therefore cannot be allowed under Article
412 of the new Civil Code which is applicable only to clerical mistakes. As the court granted the
motion to dismiss, the petitioners have appealed.
Clerical error is "one that is visible to the eyes or obvious to the "understanding" (Maxwell vs.
Hammond, 55 Phil. 519). It is "an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or
writing" (In re: Stewart, 48 N.Y.S. 957, 966, 24 App. Div. 201, quoted in Words and Phrases, Vol. 7,
p. 472).
In this case the act of writing the word "Canadian" in the birth certificates is not alleged to have been
due to the error of the employee or clerk in the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila who made the
entry. Neither is the error visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding. Upon the other hand,
the desired correction involves the controversial matter of citizenship which should be threshed out
in an appropriate action, and certainly not in proceedings to correct mistakes under Article 412 of the
Civil Code.
The order appealed from is therefore affirmed with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and
Endencia, JJ., concur.
epublic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17639

May 29, 1964

CESAR PABLO OBESO BEDUYA, petitioner-appellee,

vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent-appellant.
Abundio A. Aldemita for petitioner-appellee.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent-appellant.
MAKALINTAL, J.:
The Solicitor General has taken this appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
ordering the Civil Registrar of Carcar, Cebu, the parish priest of the Roman Catholic Church of the
same municipality and the Director of Public Libraries to correct their respective records, particularly
the copies therein of the marriage contract of appellee and his wife Catalina Tejuna Cruz. The
correction consists of the deletion of the names of Sabas Obeso and Juana Bertoldo and the
substitution in their stead of the names of Marcial Beduya and Maxima Obeso as father and mother,

respectively, of appellee; and the change of appellee's name from Pablo Obeso to Cesar Pablo
Obeso Beduya.
This proceeding was evidently initiated under the provisions of Article 412 of the new Civil Code,
which provides that "no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order."
After the decision was rendered the case was first elevated to the Court of Appeals, submitted there
on appellant's brief alone, appellee having failed to submit his brief in reply, and subsequently
certified to this Court inasmuch as only legal questions are involved.
At the trial appellee testified as follows: His true name is Cesar Pablo Obeso Beduya. He is married
to Catalina Tejuna Cruz (whose name in the marriage contract, Exhibit C, is Catalina Tagimacruz).
He signed the marriage contract without being aware of its contents, the data therein having been
furnished by the wedding sponsors. Sabas Obeso and Juana Bertoldo, who appear as his father and
mother in said marriage contract, were actually his maternal grandparents. His real parents, to whom
he was born out of wedlock, are Marcial Beduya and Maxima Obeso. When he was still a child, his
said parents married and went to live in Mindanao, leaving him with his grandparents. At that time he
used the name Pablo Obeso. Some five years later his parents came back to Carcar and took him
from his grandparents; and when he was ten years old he learned that his real name was Cesar
Pablo Obeso Beduya, which name he adopted then and has been using until now.
The opposition of the Solicitor General is based on the ground that the changes sought by petitionerappellee in the records aforementioned cannot be effected by a proceeding under Article 412 of the
Civil Code. The opposition is well-taken. Article 412 allows correction only of clerical mistakes, not
those substantial changes which may affect the civil status or nationality of the persons involved (Ty
Kong Tin v. Republic, L-5609, February 5, 1954). 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 (Black v. Republic of the Philippines, L-10869, November 28, 1958); or same harmless and
innocuous change such as correction of a name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the
occupation of the parents (Ansaldo v. Republic of the Philippines, L-10226, February 14, 1958).
1wph1.t

The correction sought by appellee refers to his family relationship, which necessarily affects his civil
status1, involving as it does not only the names but the identities of his parents, with all the changes
in the rights and obligations of the parties that the new relationship would entail. Needless to say,
one's filiation or parentage, appearing in a public record where the law requires it to be entered, may
not be changed except in a proper proceeding wherein the persons concerned are given an
opportunity to be heard.
In this case neither the alleged maternal grandparents of petitioner-appellee, who appear to be his,
parents in the marriage contract, nor the alleged true parents themselves (who were admittedly living
at the time of the trial) were summoned or presented in court to be heard in their own behalf, or to
corroborate or deny the statements in the petition.
In view of what has been set forth, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the other point raised by
appellant, as to whether or not the court a quo had jurisdiction, in a proceeding under Article 412 of
the Civil Code, to order the correction of the record of appellee's marriage not only in the civil
register but also in the local Roman Catholic church and in the Bureau of Public Libraries.

The decision appealed from is reversed and the petition dismissed, without pronouncement as to
costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Barrera, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Regala, JJ.,
concur.
Padilla, Labrador and Dizon, JJ., took no part.
Footnotes
"Status" is the term used to designate the circumstances affecting the legal situation (sum
total of capacities and incapacities) of a person in view of his age, nation and his family
membership, (hence, the term "civil status") I Outline of Philippine Civil Law, Reyes and
Puno, page 64).
1

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-19659

May 31, 1965

DR. POLICARPIO C. ALISOSO, petitioner-appellee,

vs.
TARCELA LASTIMOSO, ET AL., respondents-appellants.
Andres Y. Sabido and Jose Perez for petitioner-appellee.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents-appellants.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
Policarpio C. Alisoso, a physician by profession filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of
Cebu praying that an order be issued striking out his name from the record of birth of one Leonilo
Lastimoso appearing in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Pinamungajan, Cebu, to the end that
he may not be associated with the paternity of said child.
The petition recites that on January 28, 1960, a child by the name of Leonilo Lastimoso was reported
to the Local Civil Registrar of Pinamungajan, Cebu by one Lucila O. Lastimoso as the child of
petitioner and was entered as such in the registry of birth of said office. After having been informed
of said false entry, petitioner immediately contacted Tarcela Lastimoso, mother of Leonilo to
ascertain if said entry was made with her knowledge and consent. Tarcela, in an affidavit, declared
that she had not authorized anyone to register said child in the office of the above civil registrar, nor
did she personally register nor caused to have said child registered, in said office. Said Lucila O.
Lastimoso was not the midwife nor the nurse who attended the delivery of Tarcela Lastimoso, nor did
she have any authority to report to the local civil registrar the false statement above mentioned.
Petitioner was never married to Tarcela Lastimoso as was made to appear in said entry, for the truth
is that he is already married to one Irenea Hermosisima whom he married on March 25, 1951. The

record of the parish church of Pinamungajan, Cebu also discloses that while the mother appearing
therein of said child is Tarcela Lastimoso the father appears recorded as "no conocido" (unknown).
A representative of the Solicitor General appeared for respondents who moved for the dismissal of
the petition on the ground that it does not state a cause of action because the correction sought to
be made does not partake of a clerical error as contemplated in Article 412 of the new Civil Code.
The court a quo, after hearing, granted the petition ordering the Local Civil Registrar of
Pinamungajan to strike out from his record the name of petitioner as the alleged father of minor
Leonilo Lastimoso and state in lieu thereof that his father is unknown. Seasonably, the government
has appealed.
The Solicitor General maintains that the court a quo erred in entertaining the petition, by ordering the
Local Civil Registrar of Pinamungajan to strike out the name of petitioner from the birth record of
minor, Leonilo Lastimoso as his father and in lieu thereof state that his father is unknown for the
reason that the correction sought to be made is not merely clerical but involves a change that affects
the paternity and filiation of both petitioner and the child Leonilo Lastimoso. Specifically, he lays
stress on some rulings laid down by this Court wherein it was stated that what is contemplated in
Article 412 of the new Civil Code "are mere correction of mistakes that are clerical in nature and not
those that which may affect the civil status the nationality or the citizenship of the persons involved"
for "if it refers to a substantial change which affects the status or citizenship of a party, the matter
should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon the nature of the issue involved" (Ty Kong
Tin v. Republic, L-5609, February 5, 1954). In short, Article 412 authorizes not more than "harmless
and innocuous changes such as correction of a name that is clearly misspelled, occupation of
parents, etc." (Ansaldo v. Republic, L-10226, February 14, 1958).
But considering the peculiar facts obtaining in this case which are not disputed, to the affect that
petitioner is not the father of minor Leonilo Lastimoso, nor has he any amorous relations with his
mother Tarcela, as admitted in her affidavit, and that the one who reported that false entry, one
Lucila O. Lastimoso, is a mere interloper or one bereft of any authority to make such entry, which are
parallel to the facts obtaining in the case of Roces v. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila (L-10598,
February 14, 1958), the court a quo granted the petition on the strength of the ruling laid down in the
case above mentioned.
The pertinent portion of the Roces case which needs to be mentioned here is as follows:
On January 7, 1956, appellant Joaquin P. Roces filed, with the Court of First Instance of
Manila, a petition alleging that he is married to Pacita Carvajal, that on November 4, 1955,
he came to know of the existence of a birth certificate registered with the Local Civil
Registrar of Manila, certified true copy of which is attached to said complaint, mentioning him
as the father of one Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces, as illegitimate child; that said birth certificate
shows, on its face, that it had been executed with neither the knowledge nor the consent of
the petitioner; and that said information with regard to the alleged paternity of Ricardo
Joaquin V. Roces is false, and contrary to the provisions of Act No. 3753 and Article 280 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines. ... .
The issue in the case at bar is, however, entirely different in nature. The legal status of
Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces is not in dispute. The pleadings and his birth certificate show that
he was born outside wedlock. The only questions before Us are whether the statements in

said birth certificates identifying the alleged father of said child are valid and whether the
Local Civil Registrar was justified in making the corresponding entry in the records of his
office.
1wph1.t

xxx

xxx

xxx

It appearing on the face of the birth certificate of Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces, that the alleged
father of the child has not signed the instrument, it is clear that the statements therein
relative to the identity of the father of said child were and are, an open violation of the law.
Consequently, the local civil registrar who is duty bound to comply with said law and is
was partly with its enforcement had no authority to incorporate said unlawful statements in
the corresponding entry made by him in the records of his office, and that the entry, insofar
as the identity of the father of Ricardo Joaquin V. Roces is null and void, and should be
cancelled or corrected.
Since the facts obtaining in both cases are parallel and are undisputed and show that the entry
made in the corresponding local registrar is false and as such it should be corrected or deleted, We
find no justifiable reason for adopting a different ruling insofar as this case is concerned. In this
sense, we agree with the views expressed by the court a quo.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed. No costs.
Bengzon, C.J., J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.
Concepcion, J., took no part.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-25168 January 31, 1981
IN THE MATTER FOR THE CORRECTION OF AN ENTRY IN THE CIVIL REGISTER OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF JOLO AFFECTING THE CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH OF MINOR BIO
HEONG WING. KUMALA SALIM WING,petitioner-appellee,
vs.
AHMAD ABUBAKAR, Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Jolo; THE COMMISSIONER OF
IMMIGRATION, MANILA, and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents-appellants.

FERNANDO, C.J.:

A reversal of a lower court decision is sought by appellant Civil Registrar on the allegation that a
grave procedural defect was committed. The judgment ordered the "Civil Registrar of Jolo, Sulu,
Philippines, to make the necessary correction in the certificate of live birth of minor Bio Heong Wing
by changing the letter "M" appearing on the space for sex 'F' to mean female which is the true sex of
said minor child ... . 1 It is contended that to justify the correction of such an entry in the Civil registry,
there must be an adversary proceeding, not one summary in nature.
There appears to be misapprehension of what did transpire in the lower court. After a petition
thereafter amended was filed, the lower court issued an order directing not only the Civil Registrar of
the Municipality of Jolo, Sulu, the Provincial Fiscal of Sulu and the Solicitor General, but likewise the
alien Control Aide Office of Jolo and the Bureau of Immigration of Manila, of the hearing scheduled
on September 30, 1963. 2 There was on August 16, 1963, an opposition on the part of the Provincial
Fiscal in representation of the Solicitor General's Office. Thereafter, hearings were held, the first on July
24, 1964, the second on October 5, 1964 and the third on February 26, 1965. There were seventy pages
of stenographic notes all in all. 3 Then the lower court rendered the appealed decision consisting of
thirteen pages on July 12, 1965, 4 ordering the correction sought by minor Bio Heong Wing as above
indicated. There were five witnesses presented by petitioner.
The findings of fact follow: "Kumala Salim Wing, petitioner herein, a Muslim woman and Filipino
citizen, married sometime in 1955 to Wing Siong, 47 years old, Chinese citizen, resident of Jolo,
Sulu, in a Muslim ceremony held at a certain house in Tulay, Jolo, Sulu, but that they married again
on September 28, 1958 before the Justice of the Peace, Ricardo T. Garcia, in Jolo, Sulu for the
reason that the Immigration Office of Jolo, Sulu, refused to register their Muslim marriage. After the
registration of their civil marriage, the petitioner as wife of Wing Siong, was issued an alien certificate
of registration No. A-130057. The couple have been married for almost ten (10) years now and that
during this length of time, they have six (6) children, including the newly born child, namely: (1) Bio
Cheng, 9 years old, female; (2) Man Way, 7 years old, male; (3) Bio Heong, 6 years old, female; (4)
Seo Ming, 4 years old, male; (5) Bio Chan, 3 years old, female and (6) Wa Sang, 9 months old,
male; and all these children are living and none had died. The third child, Bio Heong, whose sex is
sought to be corrected in this petition, was born in Tulay, Jolo, Sulu, on November 20, 1958. The
couple had all their children registered with the Immigration Office as aliens but that in the case of
Bio Heong, their third female child, a mistake as to her sex was committed in the issuance of the
child's certificate of live birth after the child, Bio Heong was delivered from the womb of its mother,
petitioner herein assisted by the attending nurse, Hadji Kimjiok Donesa, who due to a confusion
created by other deliveries she attended the same day when Bio Heong was also delivered,
instructed Andami Labbay, her clerk, to prepare the Certificate of Live Birth of the newly born child,
Bio Heong, and dictated the entries to be filled up in said document. It is not clear whether it was
Andami Labbay's inadvertence or wrong reception of dictation or the attending nurse's confused
dictation that led to the filling up in the space for sex of "M" to mean male instead of "F" to mean
female, the latter being the correct sex of the child, Bio Heong. This erroneous document was then
filed with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Jolo, Sulu, without the attending nurse nor the
parents of the child having discovered its mistake before registration. The couple had not discovered
the mistake because both had no formal schooling and does not read nor understand English.
However, when the couple wanted to register their child, Bio Heong, with the Immigration Office in
Jolo, Sulu, sometime before 1960, the error or mistake in the child's certificate of live birth was
discovered by the Immigration Office. Despite the discovery, the couple had the child, Bio Heong,
registered in the Immigration Office with the data used as appearing in said certificate of live birth
without correction. However, the Immigration Officer advised the couple to see a lawyer to have the
mistake corrected. 5

Then came this portion of the appealed decision: "The fact that Bio Heong, the daughter of the
petitioner with Wing Siong, is a female child and not a male child is supported by corroborative oral
testimonies, besides documents, which this Court holds as credible. Hadji Kimjiok Donesa, a
registered nurse, who had attended to the petitioner in the latter's deliveries of the first five (5)
children personally found out that the sex of the child, Bio Heong, one of the said five (5) children, is
female. Kurais Mundaris, 38 years old, was employed since ten (10) years ago as laborer of the Hip
Siong Bakery in Jolo, Sulu, owned by Wing Siong and the petitioner, and during the period of his
employment, he came to know the name and sexes of the children of his employers, having seen
oftentimes the children play within the premises of the bakery wherein Bio Heong used to be naked
when she played and he saw the said child possessing the "parts of woman." Alex Kho, a public
relations officer of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Jolo, Sulu, explained that the Chinese
characters representing "Bio" means wonderful or beautiful while that of Heong means sweet or
fragrant or sweet smelling, and that when the Chinese characters representing "Bio" and Heong are
combined, they mean young girl, beautiful and sweet like perfume (Exhibit "H"), and that under no
circumstances is the name "Bio Heong" used for a male child "because it is very clear that Bio
Heong means beautiful and young lady." Dr. Virginia M. Villanueva, an attending physician in Jolo,
Sulu, examined Bio Heong on June 11, 1964, and found her to be a female in every aspect' (Exhibit
"B"). Bio Heong finished kindergarten class at the Notre Dame School, Jolo, Sulu, on April 24, 1965,
and the program-invitation issued for their commencement exercises listed Bio Heong among the
girls graduates (Exhibits "C", "C-l" and "C-2" furthermore, all the first five children of the couple,
namely, Bio Cheng, May Way, Bio Heong, Seo Ming, and Bio Chan, with the exception of the newly
born Wa Sang, were presented in open Court, This Court observed that the five children have the
correct sequence of age from the eldest to the youngest; that the five children looked alike,
possessing similar features to that of their parents, petitioner and Wing Siong; and that Bio Heong is
truly a girl. 6 It was further stated in such decision: "There could be no question that an appropriate
proceeding was conducted in the hearing of this petition whereby all parties concerned, including the
government and its agencies, whose interest may be affected were either heard or given their opportunity
to oppose said petition. Considering the publication made, the appearance of the parties concerned either
personally or through their competent representatives and the presentation of the evidence during the
hearing, this petition is not summary in nature, but it is undoubtedly an appropriate proceeding, where the
matter proved was threshed out in a regular trial on the merits. 7
The persuasive quality of the decision is thus apparent. No effort was spared to ascertain the truth of
the matter. What is clearly discernible is that an error was committed and all that the Court did in
accordance with law was to have it corrected. It would be unwarranted under the circumstances, to
reverse such a decision. It must be affirmed.
1. Its conformity to the settled rule first set forth in the leading case of Ty Kong Tin v. Republic of the
Philippines, 8 a 1954 decision, is quite clear. The matter therein involved was the citizenship not only of
the petitioner but of his children. This Court, through Justice Bautista Angelo, in interpreting Article 412 of
the Civil Code, held: "After a mature deliberation, the opinion was reached that what was contemplated
therein are mere corrections of mistakes that are clerical in nature and not those which may affect the civil
status or the nationality or citizenship of the persons involved. If the purpose of the petition is merely to
correct a clerical error then the court may issue an order in order that the error or mistake may be
corrected. It refers to a substantial change, which affects the status or citizenship of a party, the matter
should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon the nature of the issue involved. 9 By the
time Chug Siu v. Local Civil Registrar 10 was decided, it had been reiterated in at least twelve cases,
starting from Ansaldo v. Republic 11 and ending with Tan v. Republic. 12 One of the latest cases, a 1977
decision, Republic v. Castaneda, Jr., 13 reaffirmed such a doctrine, citing eight other decisions starting
from Dy Oliva v. Republic 14 and ending with Republic v. Amores. 15

2. Nor would it be the first time that a procedure of this charecter did suffice for the correction of an
error in the records of the Civil Registrar. In Malicden v.
Republic 16 this Court held that testimonial evidence may override an erroneous entry. Thereafter,
in Alisoso v. Lastimoso 17this Court ruled that an unauthorized false entry may be cancelled by the Court
through an action of this nature. Matias v. Republic, 18 the opinion being penned by then Acting Chief
Justice J.B.L Reyes, is even more in point. Thus: "Granting that the supplying of a name that was left
blank in the original recording of the birth does not constitute, as contended by the Solicitor General, a
rectification of a mere clerical error, it is well to observe that the doctrine of the case of Ty Kong Tin v.
Republic, 94 Phil. 321, and subsequent adjudications predicated thereon, forbade only the entering of
material corrections or amendments in the record of birth by virtue of a judgment in a summary action
against the Civil Registrar. In the case of petitioner herein, however, the proceedings were not summary,
considering the publication of the petition made by order of the court in order to give notice to any person
that might be interested, including direct service on the Solicitor General himself. 19
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is affirmed. No costs.
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., took no part.

Footnotes
1 Decision, Dispositive Portion, record on Appeal, 49.
2 Record on Appeal 1-17.
3 T.s.n., of July 24, 1964, October 5, 1964 and February 26, 1965.
4 Record on Appeal, 38-49.
5 Decision, Record on Appeal, 39-41.
6 Ibid, 41-43.
7 Ibid, 46-47.
8 94 Phil. 321.
9 Ibid, 323.
10 L-20649, July 31,1967, 20 SCRA 877.
11 102 Phil. 1046 (1958).
12 L-19647, April 29,1966,16 SCRA 661.

13 L-36769, October 28, 1977, 80 SCRA 111.

14 L-21806, August 17, 1967, 20 SCRA 1070.
15 L-35232, January 31, 1973, 49 SCRA 361. Cf. Republic v.
Court of First Instance, L-31748, August 20, 1979, 92 SCRA 632 and Republic v.
Barbers, L-48720, October 30,1979,93 SCRA 846.
16 L-19141, October 31,1964,12 SCRA 313.
17 L-19659, May 31,1965,14 SCRA 210.
18 L-26982, May 8, 1969, 28 SCRA 31.
19 Ibid., 33.