Adversary proceedings

The civil register contains records of births, marriages, deaths, legal separations, annulments of marriage, judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning, legitimations, adoptions, acknowledgments of natural children, naturalization, loss, or recovery of citizenship, civil interdiction, judicial determination of filiation, voluntary emancipation of a minor, and changes of name. Since the civil register contains all acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons, changes or corrections therein are usually effected by judicial order. But with the enactment of RA 9048 on February 8, 2001,corrections of clerical or typographical errors and change of first name and nickname may now be effected by the municipal or city civil registrar or consul general since these changes or corrections are of a harmless or innocuous nature. All other changes or corrections of substantial nature must be done by order of the court. This case specifies the procedure in effecting said changes or corrections.

This is the case of Mr. Lo, a Chinaman, who married Ms. Lai, also a Chinese sometime in 1931 in China. After giving birth to a daughter, the couple moved to the Philippines where the prolific Mr. Lo sired ten more children with Lai, six boys and four girls. Then, Lai stopped conceiving.

During their marriage, Mr. Lo however engaged in some extramarital exploits with Lili, a young 17-year old Chinese girl whose arrival in the Philippines sometime in October 1948 was facilitated by Lo. Lili was introduced by Lo to his family as their new housemaid. But far from becoming their housemaid, she immediately became Lo’s mistress. As a result of their illicit relations, Lili gave birth to five boys and three girls, bringing Lo’s children from two different women to nineteen.

All was well among the two sets of children. They lived in the same compound. Lili gave the necessary maternal care and guidance to her children with Lo. But unknown to Lai and her eleven legitimate children with Lo, everytime Lili gave birth to her child with Lo, the latter falsified the entries in the records of birth of the children by making it appear that their mother was also Lai. Thus all the children of Lili with Lo were also registered as legitimate children of Lo and Lai.

When the eleven legitimate children discovered the dishonesty and fraud perpetrated by their father Lo, the peaceful situation in the compound was disturbed. The tides turned after the death of Lai when Lo insisted that the names of all his children including those with Lili be included in the obituary of Lai as the latter’s children. The eleven legitimate children thus requested the NBI to conduct an investigation on the matter. After the investigation, the falsification and the fraud was confirmed as part of the grand design of Lo in making his eight children with Lili also legitimate, consequently elevating the status of his second family and secure their future.

Based on this NBI report, the eleven legitimate children of Lo and the late Lai filed petitions for cancellation and /or correction of entries in the records of birth of the eight children of Lo with Lili under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court providing for a summary procedure. They seek to have the entry for the name of the mother of the eight changed from "Lai" to "Lili".

Lili and her eight children asked the RTCs to dismiss these petitions. They argued that what the legitimate eleven seek is not merely a correction in name but a declaration that the eight children were not born of Lo’s legitimate wife, Lai but of his mistress Lili, in effect bastardizing them. According to Lili and her children, these petitions constitute a collateral attack against legitimacy which cannot be done in a summary proceeding under Rule 108.

Were they correct?

No.

It is precisely the province of a special proceeding such as the one outlined under Rule 108 to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. The petitions filed by the eleven for the correction of entries in the record of birth of the eight were intended to establish that for physical and/or biological reasons it was impossible for Lai to have conceived and given birth to the eight as shown in their birth records. Contrary to the contentions of Lili and her eight children that the petitions before the RTC’s were actually actions to impugn legitimacy, the prayer therein is not to declare that the eight are illegitimate children of Lai but to establish that the former are not the latter’s children. There is nothing to impugn as there is no blood relation at all between the late Lai and the eight children of Lili.

Even substantial errors in a civil register may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule 108 provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding where the civil registrar and all parties who have or claim any interest which may be affected thereby are made parties in the petition, an order fixing the time and place of the petition is issued by the court, the said order is caused to be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, and the civil registrar and the adverse parties are given 15 days to file their opposition thereto. If all these procedural requirements are followed, the petition for correction and/or cancellation of entries in the civil register even if conducted under Rule 108 can no longer be described as "summary". If the civil registrar and other persons affected file an opposition which is actively prosecuted, the proceedings thereon become adversary proceedings.

RA 9048 now embodies the summary procedure for changes or corrections of a harmless and innocuous nature while Rule 108 provides for that appropriate adversary proceeding for changes or corrections of substantial kind. Both petitions filed in the RTC’s by the eleven legitimate children of the late Lai with Lo, for corrections and/or cancellation of entries in the record of births of the eight children of Lo with Lili, are appropriate adversary proceedings (Lee et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al. G.R.118387 October 11, 2001).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]