QUESTION: Petitioner, a Filipino, was a common-law spouse of a Chinese named Go Eng, with whom she had seven children, two of whom were erroneously registered as legitimate and Chinese citizens in their birth certificates. All the other five children had birth records correctly reflecting the fact that their parents were both single; that they were illegitimate; and that they were Filipino citizens. The Petition was published in a news paper of general circulation as required by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Notice thereof was duly served on the Solicitor General, the Local Civil Registrar, and Go Eng. The order setting the case for hearing also directed the civil registrar and the other respondents or any person claiming any interest to file their opposition and cross-examined the petitioner during the trial.

This petition sought to correct the civil status and citizenship of petitioner as appearing in her children’s birth certificates, as well as the civil status of said children. If your were the judge, how would you decide? Explain.

A I would grant the petition. This case is similar to the case of Republic vs. Valencia, 141 SCRA 462, where the Supreme Court said that 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 undisputedly substantial as well as controversial, 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 true facts established, provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. x x x To follow (the Solicitor General’s) argument that Rule 108 has been followed, a petition for correction can no longer be described as “summary.” There can be no doubt, said the Court, that when an opposition to the petition is filed either by Civil Registrar or any person having or claiming any interest in the entries sought to be canceled and/or corrected, and the opposition is actively prosecuted, the proceedings thereon become adversary proceedings. After noting the well-documented proof which was never contradicted by the Republic, the High Court observed that it would be a denial of substantive justice if two children proven by the facts to be Philippine citizens, and whose five sisters and brother born of the same mother and father enjoy all the rights of citizens, are denied the same rights on the simple argument that the “correct procedure” not specified or even intimidated has not been followed.