Roice Anne married Thomas, a Canadian national, in 2012. Subsequently, they moved to Canada, and thereat, their baby girl was born on June 27, 2015. The fact of birth of the child was reported to the Philippine Consulate Office in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Roice Anne noticed however that the report mistakenly stated the child’s birth as June 27, 2016, instead of June of June 27, 2015. She tried to have it corrected with the consular office, but the latter told her to file the necessary petition for correction of entry before a Philippine court. Since she is a resident of Davao City, she filed a petition for correction of entry before the RTC of Davao City.
The RTC of Davao City, however, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the proper venue should be in Manila, since all all reports of civil registry entries should be reported to the PSA office in Manila. Her motion for reconsideration denied, Roice Anne sought recourse to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not RTC of Davao has jurisdiction to try the case.
The Ruling:
The petition lacks merit.
In the assailed Order dated March 24, 2017, the RTC motu proprio dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that the proper court is the RTC of Manila, where the PSA Office, in which the Report of Birth of the petitioner’s daughter was registered, is situated.
To be clear, the petition filed before the RTC was a petition for correction of entry which, under Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, must be filed in the RTC where the corresponding civil registry is located. The Rule provides:
Section 1. Who may file petition. – Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the [Regional Trial Court] of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.
Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. — Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriage; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; U) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (1) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.
Based on the above-mentioned rule, a petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register may be filed with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.
It bears stressing that Rule 108 is a special proceeding for which specific rules apply. In Fujiki v. Marinay, the Court noted, thus:
Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that “[a] special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.” Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify facts of a person’s life which are recorded by the State pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753. These are facts of public consequence such as birth, death or marriage, which the State has an interest in recording.
Given that Rule 108 pertains to a special proceeding, the specific provisions stated thereunder, particularly on venue, must be observed in order to vest the court with jurisdiction.
Apart from the foregoing, the petition likewise failed to comply with other jurisdictional requirements such as impleading the civil registrar and all persons who may have a claim or interest in the correction sought. The local civil registrar is an indispensable party for which no final determination of the case can be reached. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated the importance of impleading the civil registrar on petitions filed under Rule 108, 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 impleaded 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 the proceedings subsequent to the filing of the complaint including the judgment.
The inescapable consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar is that the RTC will not acquire jurisdiction over the case or, if proceedings were conducted, to render the same a nullity. In Republic, the Court emphasized, thus:
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 concerned, null and void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the subject matter.
In view of the defects in the filing of the petition, the RTC of Davao City cannot be faulted in dismissing the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the dismissal is without prejudice to the refilling of the petition in the proper court, with full compliance to the specific requirements of Rule 108.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Orders dated March 24, 2017 and July 24, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54 of Davao City are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
A. REYES, JR., J.:
Peralta (Chairperson), Leonen, Hernando, and Carandang[*], JJ., concur.
THIRD DIVISION, G.R. No. 233520, March 6, 2019, ROICE ANNE F. FOX, PETITIONER, V. THE PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY AND THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, RESPONDENTS.
1 thought on “Rule 108 pertains to a special proceeding, thus the specific provisions stated thereunder, particularly on venue, must be observed in order to vest the court with jurisdiction.”