3Republit of tbe ~bilippineS'

~uprtmt ~ourt
:fflanila

FIRST DIVISION

EDUARDO SANTOS, G.R. No. 221277

Petitioner,

Present:

PERALTA, CJ,
Chairperson,
CAGUIOA,
- \/CTSUS .. CARANDANG
'
ZALAMEDA, and
GAERLAN,JJ

REPUBLIC OF THE Promulgated:

PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. MAR 1 8 2021
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------x

DECISION J
CARANDANG, J.:

Before this Cm.,rt is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45

of the Rules of C,')un (Rules), assailing the Decision 2 dated April 20, 2015
and the Resolutiori2 dated October 13, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CV No. 100868 fiied by petitioner Eduardo Sa.11tos (Eduardo).

'
Rd/o,pµ.:ZJ-j:_
Pcnn~d by As':-:-.:i~'".':":' ~ust1ce F' ksrdc R. Rosario (n.:;"v a member cf this Court) with the concurrence
Prt;sicling, Jus:icc tv1,J:,:e~ B. ;-.;.eyes, Ji. (forme;- r11ernber of the Court) and Assoc1ate Justice Edwin
D. S0rungon; i,:. ;-1t 9--J q
t
Id. at 16-17.
 Decision 2 G.R. No. 221277

Antecedents

On August 9, 2011, ·Eduardo filed a petition for correction of entries

and cancellation of annotation in his certificate of live birth (COLB) under
Rule 108 of the Rules praying that his records in the civil registry be corrected
to reflect his surname as "Santos" instead of"Cu," his nationality as "Filipino"
instead of"Chinese," his filiation as "illegitimate" instead of"legitimate", and
his mother's civil status as "single" instead of "married." Imp leaded as
respondents in his petition are the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, National
Statistics Office, .and all persons who shall be affected by the proceedings.
The Office of the Solicitor General was notified through service of a copy of
the petition. 4

Eduardo alleged that he was born in Manila on June 10, 1952 to his
Chinese father, Nga Cu Lay, and Filipino mother, Juana Santos, who were not
legally married. Though his parents lived together as common-law husband
and wife, his father purportedly had a subsisting marriage to a Chinese woman
in China. Eduardo claimed that when he was born, the midwife who filled out
and registered his COLB erroneously indicated his nationality as "Chinese"
and his filiation as "Legitimate." Furthermore, his Filipino mother was
indicated as "married" to his Chinese father. Eduardo averred that he has
always used his mother's surname, "Santos," and that he elected Filipino
citizenship in due time. 5

After compliance with the jurisdictional requirements, and upon due

notification to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), National Statistics
Office (NSO), and Local Civil Registrar of the City of Manila, Eduardo
presented his evidence consisting of the following: (1) Eduardo's Election of
Philippine Citizenship; 6 (2) Oath of Allegiance;7 (3) Affidavit of his mother
Juana Santos to the effect that he is an illegitimate child because she was not
legally married to his Chinese father; 8 ( 4) documents showing that he
exercised his right of suffrage;9 (5) His Judicial Affidavit; (6) His COLB; 10
(7) Death Certificate of Juana Santos who died on May 30, 1994; 11 (8) Death
Certificate of Cu Lay who died on May 9, 1973 stating that he was married to
a certain Dy Yam ofChina; 12 and (8) other documents showing Eduardo's use
of the surname "Santos." 13

4
Id. at 67-68.
5
Id. at 10.
Id. at 81-87.
7
Id. at 88.
!d. at 89.
id. at 90-91.
10
Id. at 74
II
Id. at 75.
12
Id. at 76.
13 .
Id. at 92-99.
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 221277

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On February" 22, 2013, the RTC rendered its Decision, 14 the dispositive
portion of which reads: .

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered

ordering the Local Civil Register of Manila and the National
Census and Statistics Office to effect the necessary
conection in the entry of the Birth Certificate of EDUARDO
SANTOS, as follows:

a) to indicate and enter therein the surname of petitioner's

mother "SANTOS" as his last name;
b) to conect his filiation from "legitimate" to
"illegitimate";
c) to conect his nationality from "Chinese" to "Filipino";
and
d) to conect the civil status of petitioner's mother from
"'marriedn to "single".

The conected Birth Certificate shall be issued once this

Decision has become final and executory and upon payment
by petitioners of the requisite legal fees.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Local Civil

Registrar of Manila, the Office of the Solicitor General and
the National Statistic Office.

SO ORDERED. 15

The RTC held that Eduardo satisfied the requirement of publication

under Section 4 ofRule 108 of the Rules. 16 The RTC also found unmeritorious
the claim of the public prosecutor that Eduardo's evidence is hearsay and self-
serving and that the recourse he availed is misplaced because of his own
ad...rnission that he was Chinese by birth. For the RTC, Eduardo had
satisfactorily shown that he is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. 17

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On April 20, 2015, the CA rendered its Decision, 18 the dispositive

portion of which st::i.tes:

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 22 February 2013

of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila, in Sp. Proc.
No. 11-126185 for Cancellation of Annotation in the Birth
Certificate of Eduardo Santos, granting the petition is
PARTIALLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

14
Penned by Presiding Judge Theb1a Bunyi-Medina; id. at 67-73.
15
Id. at 72-73.
16
Id. at 72.
17
Id.
18
Supra note 2.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 221277

Eduardo is hereby DECLARED to be a Filipino

citizen; but his surname shall remain "Cu" and he remains to
be a legitimate child of his father, Nga Cu Lay. The Civil
Registrar_ of Manila is DIRECTED to correct the entries
accordingly.

SO ORDERED. 19 (Emphasis and italics in the

original)

The CA agreed with the ruling of the RTC that Eduardo's citizenship is
Filipino because the 1935 Constitution -which was in force at the time of his
birth - states that a child born of a Filipino mother who elects Philippine
20
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority is a Filipino citizen.

However, with regard to Eduardo's filiation, the CA found that he failed

to overcome the legal presumption that he is a legitimate child of his parents.
The CA gave credence to the COLB of Eduardo which was considered a
formidable evidence pursuant to the Civil Code and Article 172 of the Family
Code for purposes of recognition and filiation. 21 The CA held that upon
expiration of the periods fixed in Article 170, and in proper cases, Article 171
of the Family Code, the action to impugn the legitimacy of a child would no
longer be legally feasible and the status conferred by the presumption
becomes fixed and unassailable. 22 The CA added that only the father, or in
exceptional instances, the latter's heirs, can contest in an appropriate action
the legitimacy of a child born to his wife. 23

In ruling that the affidavit of Juana Santos (Juana) hardly establishes

Eduardo's alleged illegitimate filiation, the CA explained that a child born
during a marriage shall be considered legitimate even if the mother may have
declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
For the CA, to give credence to Juana's affidavit would be to allow her to
arrogate unto herself a right exclusively lodged in the husband, or in a proper
case, his heirs. 24

In a Resolution25 dated October 13, 2015, the CA denied Eduardo's

motion for pattial reconsideration for lack ofmerit. 26

In the present petition, 27 Eduardo insists that the CA failed to give

credence to his mother's notarized affidavit stating that she was not legally
married to Nga Cu Lay. 28 He asserts that the notarized affidavit of Juana
should be admitted as it enjoys the presumption of regularity29 and should

19 Rollo,;,. 14.
20
ld.atll.
21
Id. at 11-12.
22
Id. at !2--13
23
Id. at 13
24
Id.
25
Supra note 3.
26
Rollo, p. 17.
27 Id. at2l-51.
28
Id. at 50.
29 Id. at 44, 50.
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 221277

suffice in establishing his illegitimate status. He even attached a Certificate of

No Marriage (CENOMAR) 30 purportedly issued by the NSO to prove that
Juana does not appear in the National Indices ofMarriage. 31 He also maintains
that he should be allowed to use the surname of his mother because he has
been using "Santos': in all of his dealings and transactions as shown in various
documents he presented. 32

In its Comment, 33 the OSG argued that: (I) The affidavit of Juana
cannot be admitted as evidence of Eduardo's pedigree, particularly his
relationship with his parents who allegedly were not married, for failure of
another family member to testify thereon; 34 (2) Even if Eduardo himself may
properly testify on Juana's affidavit, the Family Code bars him and Juana from
questioning his legitimacy; 35 (3) The CENOMAR attached to the petition
cannot be considered by the Court as it was not presented and formally offered
during trial. 36

In his Reply, 37 Eduardo points out that a family member need not
corroborate his testimony on matters contained in his mother's affidavit
because this is not required under Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules. He
submits that it is sufficient that the relationship between the two persons,
Eduardo and Juana, is shown by evidence other than her declaration in her
affidavit. For Eduardo, his relationship to his mother is not entirely dependent
on her affidavit, but is also established in other evidence such as his COLB.
Eduardo maintains that Juana Santos' affidavit should be accorded full weight
and credence. 38 Eduardo also highlights that the rule in Article 170 of the
Family Code limiting only to the husband, or in his default, his heirs, the
action to impugn the legitimacy of the child presupposes the existence of a
valid marriage between the parents of the child which is not present in this
case. 39 He reiterates that, absent a valid marriage between his parents, the
restriction in Article 170 of the Family Code cannot not apply. 40

Issue

The issue to be resolved in this case is whether Eduardo may impugn

his legitimate status and claim that he is a Filipino citizen through a petition
for correction of entries in his COLB filed under Rule 108 of the Rules.

30
Id. at 79.
31
Id.
32
Id. at 48.
33
Id. at 124-133.
34
Id. at 128-129.
35
Id. at 130-131.
36
Id. at 131-132.
37
Id. at 185-188.
38
Id. at I 86.
39
Id. at 186-187.
40
Id. at l 87.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 221277

Ruling of the Court

At the outset, it must be pointed out that neither of the parties assailed
the authority of the lower court ordering the correction of entries in the COLB
of Eduardo through a petition he filed under Rule 108.

Section 8, Rule 51 of the Rules provides:

Section 8. Questions that may be decided. - No errors which

does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the
validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings
therein will be considered unless stated in the assignment of
errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error
and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass
upon plain errors and clerical errors.

As a rule, a court does not have power to decide questions except as

presented by the parties in their pleadings. 41 No error which was not assigned
and argued may be considered unless such error is: (1) closely related to or
dependent on an assigned error; or (2) it affects the jurisdiction over the
subject matter on the validity of the judgment. 42 The courts have ample
authority to rule on matters not raised by the parties in their pleadings if such
issues are indispensable or necessary to the just and final resolution of the
pleaded issues. 43 In Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees' Association
v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., 44 it was explained that:

The Supreme Court has ample authority to review

and resolve matters not assigned and specified as errors by
either of the parties in the appeal if it finds the
consideration and determination of the same essential
and indispensable in order to arrive at a just decision in
the case. This Court, thus, has the authority to waive the lack
of proper assignment of errors if the unassigned errors
closely relate to errors properly pinpointed out or if the
unassigned errors refer to matters upon which the
determination of the questions raised by the errors properly
assigned depend.

The same also applies to issues not specifically raised

by the parties. the Supreme Court, likewise, has broad
discretionary powers, in the resolution of a controversy, to
take into consideration matters on record which the parties
fail to submit to the Court as specific questions for
determination. Where the issues already raised also rest on
other issues not specifically presented, as long as the latter
issues bear relevance and close relation to the former and as
long as they arise from matters on record, the Court has the
authority to include them in its discussion of the controversy
as well as to pass upon them. In brief, in those cases wherein
questions not particularly raised by the parties surface

41 Asian Transmission Corporation v. Canlubang Sugar Estates, 457 Phil. 260, 285 (2003).
42 Multi-Realty Development Corp v. Makoti Tuscany Condominium Corp, 524 Phil. 318 (2006).
43 Hi-Tone Marketing Corporation v. Baikal Realty Corporation, 480 Phil. 545, 561 (2004).
44
166 Phil. 505 (1977).
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 221277

as necessary for the complete adjudication of the rights

and obligations of the parties and such questions fall
within the issues already framed by the parties, the
interests of justice dictate that the Court consider and
resolve them. 45 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)

In this case, the resolution on the propriety of the remedy Eduardo

availed in seeking the reliefs he prayed for in his petition, which appear to be
beyond the ambit of the authority of the trial court in petitions filed under Rule
108, is indispensable and crucial in determining whether the decision of the
CA should be upheld. Thus, the Court is accorded a broad discretionary power
to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not
assigned, including those affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter.

In the present case, Eduardo's petition for correction of entries in his

COLB was filed under Rule 108 of the Rules. Section 2 of the same Rule
enumerates the entries that may be subject to cancellation or correction:

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; G) 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.

In Republic v. Valencia, 46 the Court clarified that a pet1t10n for

correction of entry under Rule 108 of the Rules covers not only clerical errors,
but also substantial changes. The difference lies only on the procedure which
would govern the correction sought. In Republic v. Tipay, 47 the Court clarified
the difference as follows:

If the correction 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. 48

A perusal of the arguments alleged in the petition and the reliefs he

prayed for reveal that the changes sought to be reflected are substantial and
may only be resolved through the appropriate adversary proceedings under
Rule 108. In this case, Eduardo sought the correction of the following entries
in his COLB to reflect his surname as "Santos" instead of"Cu," his nationality
as "Filipino" instead of "Chinese," his filiation as "illegitimate" instead of
"legitimate," and his mother's civil status as "single" instead of "married."
What Eduardo seeks to correct are not mere clerical errors as the changes
a7
45
Id.
46
225 Phil. 408 (1986).
47
Republic v. Tipay. 826 Phil. 88, 99 (2018), citing Republic v. 0/aybar, 726 Phil. 378 (2014).
48
Id.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 221277

sought to be carried out are substantial. It is not a simple or negligible matter

of correcting a single letter in his surname due to a misspelling. Rather,
Eduardo's filiation, status, and citizenship will be gravely affected. This will
affect not only his identity, but his successional rights as well.

Considering the nature of the changes sought to be reflected in the

COLB, Rule I 08 requires that the proper parties be imp leaded and that the
order fixing the time and place for hearing the petition be published:

Section 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 any interest which would be
affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.

Section 4. Notice and publication. - Upon the filing of the

petition, the court shall, by 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 (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province.

Section 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.

The persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the

cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are: (I) the civil
registrar; and (2) all persons who have or claim any interest which would be
affected thereby. In this case, the civil registrar was properly impleaded. It
is settled that both parents of Eduardo are already dead and may no longer
be impleaded in his petition. Though publication of the notice of hearing
may cure the failure to implead all affected or interested parties in certain
cases, Eduardo failed to demonstrate to the Court that he exerted earnest
efforts in bringing to court all possible interested parties, including his
siblings, their descendants, and the purported Chinese wife of his father.
Simply alleging in his petition that he is impleading "all persons who shall
be affected" by the proceedings does not satisfy the requirement under
Section 3 of Rule 108.

Even assuming that there are no other existing interested parties who
may be affected by the outcome of the petition and that there is substantial
compliance with Section 3 of Rule 8, the Court still cannot grant the reliefs
prayed for in Eduardo's petition.

Nevertheless, the dismissal of Eduardo's petition for correction of

entries and cancellation of annotation in his COLB is without prejudice to
r
the filing of another petition under Rule 108 to modify his surname from
"Cu" to "Santos," the last name of his mother. This is consistent with the
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 221277

Court's recent ruling in Alanis III v. Court ofAppeals49 where the petitioner
was permitted to use his mother's surname when he filed a petition for
change of name. The Court held that "a legitimate child is entitled to use the
surname of either parent as a last name." 50 The change in Eduardo's surname
may be pennitted after impleading the civil registrar and "all persons who
have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby" and upon
presentation of all his evidence, including the purported CENOMAR of his
parents which he improperly introduced for the first time at this stage of the
proceedings. The trial court shall direct the Philippine Statistics Authority to
submit an authenticated certificate confirming the fact of marriage or no
marriage between the parents of Eduardo, Juana Santos and Nga Cu Lay.

In view of the foregoing, the Court no longer deems it necessary to

discuss the other arguments raised by the parties.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated April 20, 2015 and the Resolution
dated October 13, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100868
are SET ASIDE. The petition for correction of entries and cancellation of
annotation in the certificate oflive birth of petitioner Eduardo Santos docketed
as Sp. Proc. No. 11-126185 is DISMISSED, without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

49
G.R. No. 216425, November I I, 2020.
50
Id.
 10 G.R. No. 221277
Decision

WE CONCUR:

u
S. CAGUIOA

,.-- Sy$~
SAMUEL H. GAERLAN
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the op~~n of the Court's Di ·sion.

_, ~ \
DIOSDADO.M. PERALTA
Chief\/ustice