Petitioner alleged that he was born on February 25, 1950 and is the acknowledged natural child of Jorge V. Almojuela (Jorge), former governor of the said province, and Francisca B. Condeno (Francisca), both deceased. He averred that while his parents did not marry each other, he has been known to his family and friends as "Felipe Almojuela" and has been using the said surname in all of his official and legal documents. In support of his petition, he also presented a copy of his birth certificate issued by the Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Pandan, Catanduanes showing that "Felipe Almojuela" appears as his registered full name.
In a Decision, CA held that Petitioner’s failure to implead and notify the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings as mandated by the rules precluded the RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over the case, thereby, reversing the RTC’s Decision
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in nullifying the correction of entry on petitioner's birth certificate on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,
HELD: Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry through an appropriate adversary proceeding.
A reading of Sections 4 and 5 shows that the Rule mandates two (2) sets of notices to potential oppositors: one given to persons named in the petition, and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties. Consequently, the petition for a substantial correction of an entry in the civil registry should implead as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby.
In Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo, the Court emphasized that in a petition for a substantial correction or change of entry in the civil registry under Rule 108, it is mandatory that the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby be made respondents for the reason that they are indispensable parties.
Similarly, in Republic v. Uy, the Court nullified the trial court's order to correct respondent's entry for the latter's failure to implead and notify not only the Local Civil Registrar, but also her parents and siblings as the persons who have interest and are affected by the changes or corrections sought.
In this case, the CA correctly found that petitioner failed to implead both the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings. Although he claims that his half-siblings have acknowledged and accepted him, the procedural rules nonetheless mandate compliance with the requirements in the interest of fair play and due process and to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.
Moreover, although it is true that in certain instances, the Court has allowed the subsequent publication of a notice of hearing to cure the petition's lack/failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties, such as when: (a) earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested parties; (b) the parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings; (c) there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested parties; or, (d) when a party is inadvertently left out, these exceptions are, unfortunately, unavailing in this case.
In sum, the failure to strictly comply with the above-discussed requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for correction of an entry in the civil registrar involving substantial and controversial alterations renders the entire proceedings therein null and void.
In Republic v. CA, the Court held that the proceedings of the trial court were null and void for lack of jurisdiction as the petitioners therein failed to implead the civil registrar, an indispensable party, in the petition for correction of entry, viz.:
The local civil registrar is thus required to be made a party to the proceeding. He is an indispensable party, without whom no final determination of the case can be had. As he was not imp leaded in this case much less given notice of the proceeding, the decision of the trial court, insofar as it granted the prayer for the correction of entry, is void. The absence of an indispensable party in a case renders ineffectual all proceedings subsequent to the filing of the complaint including the judgment.
x x x x
The necessary consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar as an indispensable party and to give notice by publication of the petition for correction of entry was to render the proceeding of the trial court, so far as the corrction of entry was concerned, null and void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the subject matter.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
No comments:
Post a Comment