The Supreme Court granted the petition of Patricia Louise V. General and ordered the correction of her birth certificate to reflect her father's surname and her parents' marriage, ruling that a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage is quasi-conclusively presumed to be a legitimate and marital child.
The Court reversed and set aside the April 25, 2023 Decision and the February 2, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 117411.
The Case
On December 10, 2018, Patricia filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in the Birth Certificate and Change of Name under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court. She impleaded the Local Civil Registrar of San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan, the Philippine Statistics Authority, Civil Registrar General, and her parents, the Spouses Antonio M. Garrote, Jr. (Antonio) and Marites V. General (Marites), as respondents.
Patricia averred that she was born on January 23, 1996 to the Spouses Antonio and Marites, as evidenced by her certificate of live birth. Despite being married to Antonio, her mother Marites registered Patricia's birth under her maiden surname—General—because she and Antonio were not in cordial terms at the time. Marites likewise withheld the fact that she was married to Antonio in the child's birth certificate. Later, Antonio and Marites reconciled.
Patricia grew up using the surname of her father, Garrote, in her school and work records, including her identification card from the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). However, in 2017, Patricia discovered that the surname appearing on her birth certificate was "General" instead of "Garrote," and that her middle name was "Ventanilla" instead of "General."
She prayed that her middle name be changed to "General," that her surname be replaced with "Garrote," and that the place and date of her parents' wedding be changed from "NIA" to "Manila, December 27, 1994."
The RTC dismissed her petition for insufficiency of evidence, ruling that the marriage of her parents did not, by itself, suffice to establish her legitimacy as Antonio's child. Her motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated March 15, 2021. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, finding the totality of evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption of truth in her birth certificate.
The Issue
The crux of the controversy is whether the CA committed a reversible error in affirming the RTC's dismissal of Patricia's petition for the correction of entries in her birth certificate.
The Ruling
The Court resolved to grant the Petition. It held that Patricia, having been born during the subsistence of the valid marriage of Antonio and Marites Garrote, is quasi-conclusively presumed to be their legitimate and marital child. As a legitimate child, she is entitled to use the surname of her father by operation of Article 174 of the Family Code.
The dispositive portion states: "ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The April 25, 2023 Decision and the February 2, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 117411 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE." The Local Civil Registrar of the City of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan was ordered to change her middle name from "Ventanilla" to "General"; her surname from "General" to "Garrote"; and to indicate the place and date of her parents' marriage as "Manila, December 27, 1994."
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 272305
- Petition filed: December 10, 2018
- Patricia's birth: January 23, 1996
- Parents' marriage: December 27, 1994, Manila
- RTC Order denying reconsideration: March 15, 2021
- CA Decision: April 25, 2023; CA Resolution: February 2, 2024
- CA-G.R. CV No. 117411
The Court's Reasoning
The Court found that the CA rendered its Decision based on a misapprehension of facts and made factual findings contradicted by the evidence on record, justifying its consideration of the petition despite the general rule that it is not a trier of facts.
Under Article 164 of the Family Code, children conceived or born during the marriage are presumed legitimate. Patricia was born during the subsistence of the marriage, so she is presumed to be legitimately filiated. The Court held it was erroneous to burden Patricia with proving her filiation to Antonio; the law places the burden on the husband, or in some instances his heirs, under Articles 170 and 171 of the Family Code, to impugn the child's legitimacy within the periods and grounds provided by law. No such action was ever filed.
The Court noted that Article 167 provides that the child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy—a proscription that extends to entries made by the mother in the child's birth certificate. Citing Concepcion, the Court stressed that between a certificate of birth, which is only prima facie evidence, and the quasi-conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Article 164, the latter must prevail.
The Court added that Patricia complied with the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 108, that no opposition was raised after publication and notice, and that her documentary evidence consistently reflected her use of the surname Garrote. The corrections sought do not create a new civil status but merely cause the civil register to reflect her true and legally presumed status.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. 272305.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.