The Supreme Court has denied a Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the cancellation of the Certificate of Live Birth of Maria Nerissa Ritumalta Tagalicud on the ground that her birth was simulated. In its ruling, the Court held that the action to cancel the birth certificate on the ground of simulation was imprescriptible, and that the simulation itself was duly proven by a preponderance of evidence.
The Case
On April 12, 1966, spouses Angel C. Tagalicud, Jr. (Angel) and Neria L. Ritumalta (Neria) caused the registration and recording of the fact of birth of Maria Nerissa as their child in the Civil Registry of Malabon City.
After the separation of Angel and Neria in 1978, Neria migrated to Canada where she eventually passed away on January 15, 2013. Angel died on December 6, 2016.
On April 21, 2017, An-Anne et al., children of the deceased Angel from different mothers, filed a Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Live Birth against Maria Nerissa before the RTC. They averred that Maria Nerissa's birth certificate was simulated as she was made to appear that she is the legitimate child of Neria and Angel, when in fact and in law, she is not. They alleged that Angel consistently denied that Maria Nerissa was his daughter; that in an Agreement for the settlement of their conjugal properties, both stipulated that Maria Nerissa was only their ward; and that in a Petition for Divorce filed by Neria before the Ontario Court on January 5, 1992, Neria admitted to not having any children with Angel.
Maria Nerissa denied that her birth certificate was simulated and argued that the petition was a collateral attack on her legitimacy. At trial, An-Anne et al. presented two witnesses, Alma Ritumalta and Adoracion Muñoz Perez, former neighbors of Angel and Neria. Maria Nerissa did not present evidence.
The Issue
The Court addressed whether Maria Nerissa's birth certificate should be cancelled on the ground of simulation of her birth under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, framing the issue as whether her birth parents were not those whose names appear in her birth certificate, rather than a question of her legitimacy or filiation.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that, as correctly ruled by both trial and appellate courts, the testimonies were enough to constitute a preponderance of evidence supporting the conclusion that Maria Nerissa's birth parents are not those whose names appear in her birth certificate.
The Court's disposition reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. Both the Decision dated October 25, 2022 and the Resolution dated July 11, 2023 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 115875, as well as the Decision dated March 2, 2020 of Branch 291 of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City in Special Proceeding No. SP 17-014-MAL, are AFFIRMED IN TOTO."
By the Numbers
- April 12, 1966 — date of birth registered in Maria Nerissa's Certificate of Live Birth
- 1978 — year Angel and Neria separated
- January 15, 2013 — date Neria passed away
- December 6, 2016 — date Angel died
- April 21, 2017 — date An-Anne et al. filed the petition for cancellation
- January 5, 1992 — date of the Petition for Divorce filed by Neria before the Ontario Court
- Local Civil Register No. 836 and BReN No. 07502-A66HC02-0 — registry references of the birth certificate ordered cancelled
- October 25, 2022 — date of the Court of Appeals Decision
- July 11, 2023 — date of the Court of Appeals Resolution
- March 2, 2020 — date of the RTC Malabon City Decision
The Court's Reasoning
The Court gave weight to the judicial affidavits and testimonies of the two witnesses. It noted that the testimony of Adoracion was based on direct personal knowledge, while that of Alma, though admittedly hearsay, qualified as evidence of family reputation with regard to Maria Nerissa's pedigree, as defined under Rule 130, Section 42 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, as amended. Both were admissible in determining Maria Nerissa's parentage.
Both testimonies uniformly confirmed that Neria could not have given birth to Maria Nerissa, as she was never pregnant during the relevant period. The witnesses recounted that Maria Nerissa was already a baby when she was given to the couple, originally intended for Emilia "Lucing" Abrenica, but passed on to Neria after Emilia's husband refused to take in the child. The Court found the witnesses to be disinterested persons who had nothing to gain from testifying falsely.
The Court observed that these categorical statements, when juxtaposed with the incomplete entries in the birth certificate, sufficiently established by a preponderance of evidence that Maria Nerissa's birth was simulated. Maria Nerissa failed to convincingly rebut the evidence that cast doubt on the authenticity of her birth certificate. In summation, the Court held that the action to cancel the birth certificate on the ground of simulation was imprescriptible, and the simulation itself was duly proven by An-Anne et al. by a preponderance of evidence.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. 268729.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.