Chamoy & Beryl Digested Cases Republic v. CA and Molina Republic v. CA and Molina GR 10 !"#$ 1# %ebruary 1&&!

%acts' Roridel Olaviano was married to Reynaldo Molina on 14 April 1985 in Manila, and gave birth to a son a year after. Reynaldo showed signs of immat!rity and irresponsibility" on the early stages of the marriage, observed from his tenden#y to spend time with his friends and s$!andering his money with them, from his dependen#y from his parents, and his dishonesty on matters involving his finan#es. Reynaldo was relieved of his %ob in 198&, Roridel be#ame the sole breadwinner thereafter. 'n Mar#h 198(, Roridel resigned from her %ob in Manila and pro#eeded to )ag!io *ity. Reynaldo left her and their #hild a wee+ later. ,he #o!ple is separated-in-fa#t for more than three years. On 1& A!g!st 199., Roridel filed a verified petition for de#laration of n!llity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. /viden#e for Roridel #onsisted of her own testimony, that of two of her friends, a so#ial wor+er, and a psy#hiatrist of the )ag!io 0eneral 1ospital and Medi#al *enter. Reynaldo did not present any eviden#e as he appeared only d!ring the pre-trial #onferen#e. On 14 May 1991, the trial #o!rt rendered %!dgment de#laring the marriage void. ,he 2oli#itor 0eneral appealed to the *o!rt of Appeals. ,he *o!rt of Appeals denied the appeals and affirmed in toto the R,*3s de#ision. 1en#e, the present re#o!rse. (ssue' 4hether opposing or #onfli#ting personalities sho!ld be #onstr!ed as psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity )eld' ,he *o!rt of Appeals erred in its opinion the *ivil *ode Revision *ommittee intended to liberali5e the appli#ation of 6hilippine #ivil laws on personal and family rights, and holding psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity as a broad range of mental and behavioral #ond!#t on the part of one spo!se indi#ative of how he or she regards the marital !nion, his or her personal relationship with the other spo!se, as well as his or her #ond!#t in the long ha!l for the attainment of the prin#ipal ob%e#tives of marriage7 where said #ond!#t, observed and #onsidered as a whole, tends to #a!se the !nion to self-destr!#t be#a!se it defeats the very ob%e#tives of marriage, warrants the dissol!tion of the marriage. ,he *o!rt reiterated its r!ling in 2antos v. *o!rt of Appeals, where psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity sho!ld refer to no less than a mental 8not physi#al9 in#apa#ity, e:isting at the time the marriage is #elebrated, and that there is hardly any do!bt that the intendment of the law has been to #onfine the meaning of ;psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity3 to the most serio!s #ases of personality disorders #learly demonstrative of an !tter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and signifi#an#e to the marriage. 6sy#hologi#al in#apa#ity m!st be #hara#teri5ed by gravity, %!ridi#al ante#eden#e, and in#!rability. 'n the present #ase, there is no #lear showing to !s that the psy#hologi#al defe#t spo+en of is an in#apa#ity7 b!t appears to be more of a diffi#!lty," if not o!tright ref!sal" or negle#t" in the performan#e of some marital obligations. Mere showing of

irre#on#ilable differen#es" and #onfli#ting personalities" in no wise #onstit!tes psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity. ,he *o!rt, in this #ase, prom!lgated the g!idelines in the interpretation and appli#ation of Arti#le <& of the =amily *ode, removing any visages of it being the most liberal divor#e pro#ed!re in the world> 819 ,he b!rden of proof belongs to the plaintiff7 8?9 the root #a!se of psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity m!st be medi#ally or #lini#ally identified, alleged in the #omplaint, s!ffi#iently proven by e:pert, and #learly e:plained in the de#ision7 8<9 ,he in#apa#ity m!st be proven e:isting at the time of the #elebration of marriage7 849 the in#apa#ity m!st be #lini#ally or medi#ally permanent or in#!rable7 859 s!#h illness m!st be grave eno!gh7 8&9 the essential marital obligation m!st be embra#ed by Arti#les &8 to (1 of the =amily *ode as regards h!sband and wife, and Arti#les ??. to ??5 of the same #ode as regards parents and their #hildren7 8(9 interpretation made by the @ational Appellate Matrimonial ,rib!nal of the *atholi# *h!r#h, and 889 the trial m!st order the fis#al and the 2oli#itor-0eneral to appeal as #o!nsels for the 2tate. ,he 2!preme *o!rt granted the petition, and reversed and set aside the assailed de#ision7 #on#l!ding that the marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina s!bsists and remains valid.

*eouel +antos vs Court o, Appeals & -ulia Rosario Bedia.+antos On November 19, 2010 Article 36: Psychological Incapacity Aeo!el, a member of the Army, met B!lia in 'loilo *ity. 'n 2eptember 198&, they got married. ,he #o!ple latter lived with B!lia3s parents. B!lia gave birth to a son in 198(. ,heir marriage, however, was marred by the fre$!ent interferen#e of B!lia3s parent as averred by Aeo!el. ,he #o!ple also o##asionally $!arrels abo!t as to, among other things, when sho!ld they start living independently from B!lia3s parents. 'n 1988, B!lia went to the C2 to wor+ as a n!rse despite Aeo!el3s opposition. ( months later, she and Aeo!el got to tal+ and she promised to ret!rn home in 1989. 2he never went home that year. 'n 199., Aeo!el got the #han#e to be in the C2 d!e to a military training. D!ring his stay, he desperately tried to lo#ate his wife b!t to no avail. Aeo!el, in an effort to at least have his wife #ome home, filed to n!llify their marriage d!e to B!lia3s psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity. Aeo!el asserted that d!e to B!lia3s fail!re to ret!rn home or at least #omm!ni#ate with him even with all his effort #onstit!tes psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity. B!lia atta#+ed the #omplaint and she said that it is Aeo!el who is in#ompetent. ,he prose#!tor as#ertained that there is no #oll!sion between the two. Aeo!el3s petition is however denied by the lower and appellate #o!rt. (++/0' 4hether or not psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity is attendant to the #ase at bar. )0*D' )efore de#iding on the #ase, the 2* noted that the =amily *ode did not define the term psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity", whi#h is adopted from the *atholi# *anon Aaw. )!t basing it on the deliberations of the =amily *ode Revision *ommittee, the provision in 6', adopted with less spe#ifi#ity than e:pe#ted, has been designed to allow some resilien#y in its appli#ation. ,he =*R* did not give any e:amples of 6' for fear that the giving of e:amples wo!ld limit the appli#ability of the provision !nder the prin#iple of e%!sdem generis. Rather, the =*R* wo!ld li+e the %!dge to interpret the provision on a #ase-to-#ase basis, g!ided by e:perien#e, the

findings of e:perts and resear#hers in psy#hologi#al dis#iplines, and by de#isions of #h!r#h trib!nals whi#h, altho!gh not binding on the #ivil #o!rts, may be given pers!asive effe#t sin#e the provision was ta+en from *anon Aaw. ,he term psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity" defies any pre#ise definition sin#e psy#hologi#al #a!ses #an be of an infinite variety. Arti#le <& of the =amily *ode #annot be ta+en and #onstr!ed independently of b!t m!st stand in #on%!n#tion with, e:isting pre#epts in o!r law on marriage. 6' sho!ld refer to no less than a mental 8not physi#al9 in#apa#ity that #a!ses a party to be tr!ly in#ognitive of the basi# marital #ovenants that #on#omitantly m!st be ass!med and dis#harged by the parties to the marriage whi#h 8Art. &89, in#l!de their m!t!al obligations to live together, observe love, respe#t and fidelity and render help and s!pport. ,he intendment of the law has been to #onfine the meaning of 6' to the most serio!s #ases of personality disorders #learly demonstrative of an !tter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and signifi#an#e to the marriage. ,his psy#hologi#al #ondition m!st e:ist at the time the marriage is #elebrated. ,he 2* also notes that 6' m!st be #hara#teri5ed by 1a2 gravity$ 1b2 3uridical antecedence$ and 1c2 incurability. ,he in#apa#ity m!st be grave or serio!s s!#h that the party wo!ld be in#apable of #arrying o!t the ordinary d!ties re$!ired in marriage7 it m!st be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, altho!gh the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage7 and it m!st be in#!rable or, even if it were otherwise, the #!re wo!ld be beyond the means of the party involved. 'n the #ase at bar, altho!gh Aeo!el stands aggrieved, his petition m!st be dismissed be#a!se the alleged 6' of his wife is not #learly shown by the fa#t!al settings presented. ,he fa#t!al settings do not #ome #lose to to the standard re$!ired to de#ree a n!llity of marriage. *u4on +urety Co vs de Garcia %acts' 12 *adislao Chave4$ principal$ and petitioner *u4on +urety Co (nc$ e5ecuted a surety bond in ,avor o, 67B 8ictorias Branch to guaranty a crop loan granted by the latter to Chave4 in the sum o, 6h6&$000. 92 8icente Garcia$ together :ith *adislao Chave4 and Ramon *acson$ as guarantors$ signed an indemnity agreement binding themselves solidarily liable to indemni,y *u4on +urety Co (nc against any and all damages$ costs and and other e5penses :hich the petitioner may sustain or incur in conse;uence o, having become guarantor upon said bond$ to pay interest at the rate o, 19< per annum$ computed and compounded ;uarterly until ,ully paid= and to pay 1>< o, the amount involved in any litigation or other matters gro:ing out o, or connected there:ith ,or attorney?s ,ees. #2 @n April 9!$ 1&>"$ 67B ,iled a complaint against *adislao Chave4 and *u4on +urety Co. to recover the amount o, 6h6A$>!!.&>$ in interest$ attorneyBs ,ees and other costs. A2 @n August $ 1&>!$ *u4on +urety Co. instituted a third party complaint against Chave4$ *acson and Garcia. >2 @n +eptember 1!$ 1&> $ a 3udgment :as rendered ordering Chave4 and *u4on +urety Co. to pay 67B in solidarity. Che same decision liDe:ise ordered the third party de,endants Chave4$ Garcia and *acson to pay *u4on +urety Co. the amount to be paid to 67B.

"2 @n -uly #0$ 1&"0$ a :rit o, e5ecution :as issued against Garcia to satis,y the claim o, the petitioner. A :rit o, garnishment :as soon issued levying and garnishing the sugar ;uedans o, the Garcia spouses ,rom their sugar plantation. !2 +pouses Garcia ,iled a suit ,or in3unction and the trial court ruled in ,avor o, them. (ssue' E@7 the C6G could be liable on an indemnity agreement e5ecuted by the husband to accommodate a third party in ,avor o, a surety agreement )eld' 7o. Decision appealed ,rom :as a,,irmed. Costs against petitioner. Ratio Decidendi' Art. 1"1. Che con3ugal partnership shall be liable ,or' 112 All debts and obligations contracted by the husband ,or the bene,it o, the con3ugal partnership$ and those contracted by the :i,e$ also ,or the same purpose$ in the cases :here she may legally bind the partnership= 192 Arrears or income due$ during the marriage$ ,rom obligations :hich constitute a charge upon property o, either spouse or o, the partnership= 1#2 Minor repairs or ,or mere preservation made during the marriage upon the separate property o, either the husband or the :i,e= ma3or repairs shall not be charged to the partnership= 1A2 Ma3or or minor repairs upon the con3ugal partnership property= 1>2 Che maintenance o, the ,amily and the education o, the children o, both husband and :i,e$ and o, legitimate children o, one o, the spouses= 1"2 05penses to permit the spouses to complete a pro,essional$ vocational or other course. 11A0 a2 6etitioner contends that GarciaBs transaction as a guarantor through :hich he ac;uires the capacity o, being trusted$ adds to his reputation and enhances his standing in the community. )e can thus secure money :ith :hich to carry on the purposes o, their con3ugal partnership. Ehile not entirely :ithout basis$ such argument cannot prosper ,or it :ould negate :hat is e5pressly provided ,or in Article 1"1. (n the most categorical language$ a con3ugal partnership under that provision is liable only ,or such Fdebts and obligations contracted by the husband ,or the bene,it o, the con3ugal partnership.F Chere must be the re;uisite sho:ing then o, some advantage :hich clearly accrued to the :e,are o, the spouses. Chere is none in this case. Ehile Garcia by thus signing the agreement may be said to enhance his reputation$ such bene,it$ even i, hypothetically accepted$ is too remote and ,anci,ul to come :ithin the e5press terms o, the provision. (ts language is clear= it does not admit o, doubt. 7o process o, interpretation or construction need be resorted to. (t peremptorily calls ,or application. Ehere a re;uirement is made in e5plicit and unambiguous terms$ no discretion is le,t to the 3udiciary. (t must see to it that its mandate is obeyed. +o it is in this case. Chat is ho: the Court o, Appeals acted$ and :hat it did cannot be impugned ,or being contrary to la:. B@7(%AC(A MAC0@ vs. G0R8AC(@ *AG/A

?9 2*RA 8&4 O#tober <., 19&9

=A*,2> 2ometime in 191(, the parents of Ale%andro Aag!a donated two lots to him in #onsideration of his marriage to petitioner )onifa#ia Mateo. ,he marriage was #elebrated on May 15, 191( and thereafter the #o!ple too+ possession of the lots, b!t the #ertifi#ates of title remained in the donor3s name. 'n 19?<, Ale%andro died, leaving behind his widow )onifa#ia with their infant da!ghter, who lived with the father-in-law *ipriano Aag!a who in t!rn !ndertoo+ to farm on the donated lots. At first, *ipriano gave to )onifa#ia the share from the lots3 harvests, b!t in 19?& he ref!sed to deliver to petitioner the said share, whi#h reason prompted her to initiate an a#tion and won for her possession of the lots pl!s damages. On B!ly <1, 1941, *ipriano e:e#!ted a deed of sale of the said lots in favor of his yo!nger son, herein respondent 0erva#io. 6etitioner learned of this only in 195& when *ipriano stopped giving to petitioner her share to the harvest. A ,ransfer *ertifi#ate of ,itle 8,*,9 was iss!ed !nder respondent3s name by the Registry of Deeds 8ROD9 of 6angasinan. ,he *=' of 6angasinan de#lared the ,*, iss!ed to respondent n!ll and void and ordered #an#elled by the ROD, and for respondent to va#ate and deliver the lots to petitioner. 'n 195(, 0erva#io and *ipriano filed with the *=' for the ann!lment of the donation of the two lots. 4hile the #ase was pending, *ipriano died in 1958. 't was dismissed for pres#ription, having been filed after the lapse of 41 years. 4hen appealed, the *A in 19&& held that the donation to Ale%andro of the two lots with the #ombined area of 11,888 s$. m. e:#eeded by 494.(5 s$. m. his legitime and the disposable portion that *ipriano #o!ld have freely given by will, and to the same e:tent pre%!di#ed the legitime of *ipriano3s other heir, 0erva#io. ,he donation was th!s de#lared inoffi#io!s and herein petitioners were ordered to re#onvey to 0erva#io a portion of 494.(5 s$. m. from any #onvenient part of the lots. '22C/> 4hether or not the *o!rt of Appeals #orre#tly red!#ed the donation propter n!ptias for being inoffi#io!s. 1/AD> De#ision of *A based on !ns!pported ass!mptions set aside7 trial #o!rt3s order of dismissal s!stained. )efore the legal share d!e to a #omp!lsory heir may be rea#hed, the net estate of the de#edent m!st be as#ertained, by ded!#ting all payable obligations and #harges from the val!e of the property owned by the de#eased at the time of his death7 then, all donations s!b%e#t to #ollation wo!ld be added to it. 4ith the partible estate th!s determined, the legitimes of the #omp!lsory heirs #an be established, and only thereafter #an it be as#ertained whether or not a donation had pre%!di#ed the legitimes. *ertainly, in order that a donation may be red!#ed for being inoffi#io!s, there m!st be proof that the val!e of the donated property e:#eeds that of the

disposable free portion pl!s the donee3s share as legitime in the properties of the donor. 'n the present #ase, it #an hardly be seen that, with the eviden#e then before the #o!rt, it was in any position to r!le on the inoffi#io!sness of the donation involved here, and to order its red!#tion and re#onveyan#e of the ded!#ted portion to the respondents. Article 90 ! "o #etermine the legitime, the val$e o% the property le%t at the #eath o% the testator shall be consi#ere#, #e#$cting all #ebts an# charges, &hich shall not incl$#e those impose# in the &ill! ,o the val!e of the hereditary estate, shall be added the val!e of all donations by the testator that are s!b%e#t to #ollation, at the time he made them. Cenchave4 v 0scano 11&">2 ,en#have5 v /s#ano 819&59 =a#ts> 6astor ,en#have59, <?, married Ei#enta /s#ano, ?(, on =eb. ?4, 1948, in *eb! *ity. As of B!ne 1948, the newly-weds were already estranged. On B!ne ?4, 195., /s#ano left for the C2. On Ag!g!st ??, 195., she filed a verified #omplaint for divor#e against the plaintiff in the 2tate of @evada on the gro!nd of Fe:treme #r!elty, entirely mental in #hara#ter.F On O#tober ?1, 195., a de#ree of divor#e was iss!ed by the @evada *o!rt. On 2eptember 1<, 1954, /s#ano married an Ameri#an R!ssel Aeo Moran in @evada. 2he now lives with him in *alifornia and by him, has begotten #hildren. 2he a#$!ired Ameri#an #iti5enship on A!g!st 8, 1958. On B!ly <., 1955, ,en#have5 filed a #omplaint for legal separation and damages against E/ and her parents in the *='-*eb!. ,en#have5 poses the novel theory that Mamerto and Mina /s#aGo are !ndeserving of an award for damages be#a!se they are g!ilty of #ontrib!tory negligen#e in failing to ta+e !p proper and timely meas!res to diss!ade their da!ghter Ei#enta from leaving her h!sband ,en#have5 obtaining a foreign divor#e and marrying another man 8Moran9. ,his theory #annot be #onsidered> first, be#a!se this was not raised in the #o!rt below7 se#ond, there is no eviden#e to s!pport it7 third, it #ontradi#ts plaintiffHs previo!s theory of alienation of affe#tions in that #ontrib!tory negligen#e involves an omission to perform an a#t while alienation of affe#tion involves the performan#e of a positive a#t. 'ss!es> 1. 4O@ at the the time /s#ano was still a =ilipino #iti5en when the divor#e de#ree was iss!ed. ?. 4O@ the award of moral damages against /s#aGo may be given to ,en#have5 on the gro!nds of her ref!sal to perform her wifely d!ties, her denial of #onsorti!m, and desertion of her h!sband. 1eld> 1. I/2 At the time the divor#e de#ree was iss!ed, /s#ano li+e her h!sband, was still a =ilipino #iti5en. 2he was then s!b%e#t to 6hilippine law !nder Art. 15 of the @**. 6hilippine law, !nder the @** then now in for#e, does not admit absol!te divor#e b!t only provides for legal separation. =or 6hil. #o!rts to re#ogni5e foreign divor#e de#rees bet. =ilipino #iti5ens wo!ld be a patent violation of the de#lared poli#y of the 2tate, espe#ially in view of the <rd par. of Art. 1(, @**. Moreover, re#ognition wo!ld give rise to s#andalo!s dis#rimination in favor of wealthy #iti5ens to

the detriment of those members of o!r so#iety whose means do not permit them to so%o!rn abroad and obtain absol!te divor#e o!tside the 6hils. ,herefore, a foreign divor#e bet. =ilipino #iti5ens, so!ght and de#reed after the effe#tivity of the @**, is not entitled to re#ognition as valid in this %!risdi#tion. ?. I/2 ,he a#ts of Ei#enta 8!p to and in#l!ding her divor#e, for gro!nds not #o!ntenan#ed by o!r law, whi#h was hers at the time9 #onstit!te a wilf!l infli#tion of in%!ry !pon plaintiffHs feelings in a manner F#ontrary to morals, good #!stoms or p!bli# poli#yF 8*iv. *ode, Art. ?19 for whi#h Arti#le ??19 81.9 a!thori5es an award of moral damages. 't is also arg!ed that, by the award of moral damages, an additional effe#t of legal separation has been added to Arti#le 1.&. 't was plain in the de#ision that the damages atta#hed to her wrongf!l a#ts !nder the #odal arti#le 8Arti#le ?1(&9 e:pressly #ited. )!t e#onomi# san#tions are not held in o!r law to be in#ompatible with the respe#t a##orded to individ!al liberty in #ivil #ases. ,h!s, a #onsort who !n%!stifiably deserts the #on%!gal abode #an be denied s!pport 8Art. 1(8, *ivil *ode of the 6hil.9. And where the wealth of the deserting spo!se renders this remedy ill!sory, there is no #ogent reason why the #o!rt may not award damage as it may in #ases of brea#h of other obligations to do int!it! personae even if in private relations physi#al #oer#ion be barred !nder the old ma:im F@emo potest pre#ise #ogi and fa#t!mF.

*eouel +antos vs CA Leouel Santos vs. CA GR No. 112019, January 4, 1995

%ACC+' Aeo!el, a =irst Aie!tenant in the 6hilippine Army, met B!lia in 'loilo. ,he two got married in 198& before a m!ni#ipal trial #o!rt followed shortly thereafter, by a #h!r#h wedding. ,he #o!ple lived with B!lia3s parents at the B. )edia *ompo!nd. B!lia gave birth to a baby boy in 198( and was named as Aeo!el 2antos Br. O##asionally, the #o!ple will $!arrel over a n!mber of things aside from the interferen#e of B!lia3s parents into their family affairs. B!lia left in 1988 to wor+ in C2 as a n!rse despite Aeo!el3s pleas to diss!ade her. 2even months after her depart!re, she #alled her h!sband and promised to ret!rn home !pon the e:piration of her #ontra#t in B!ly 1989 b!t she never did. Aeo!el got a #han#e to visit C2 where he !nderwent a training program !nder A=6, he desperately tried to lo#ate or somehow get in to!#h with B!lia b!t all his efforts were of no avail. Aeo!el filed a #omplaint to have their marriage de#lared void !nder Arti#le <& of the =amily *ode. 1e arg!ed that fail!re of B!lia to ret!rn home or to #omm!ni#ate with him for more than 5 years are #ir#!mstan#es that show her being psy#hologi#ally in#apa#itated to enter into married life. (++/0' 4hether their marriage #an be #onsidered void !nder Arti#le <& of the =amily *ode. )0*D'

,he intendment of the law has been to #onfine the meaning of psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity to the most serio!s #ases of personal disorders #learly demonstrative of an !tter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and signifi#an#e to the marriage. ,his #ondition m!st e:ist at the time the marriage is #elebrated. Cndeniably and !nderstandably, Aeo!el stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present sit!ation. Regrettably, neither law nor so#iety itself #an always provide all the spe#ifi# answers to every individ!al problem. 4herefore, his petition was denied. G.R. 7o. *.>!911 March 1 $ 1& > R06/B*(C @% C)0 6)(*(66(70+$ petitioner, vs. C)0 )@7@RAB*0 G0@RG0 6. MAC*(.(7G$ in his capacity as the 6residing -udge o, the Court o, %irst (nstance o, Baguio City and Benguet$ BRA7C) ((($ +G 6(A@$ *00 G(@H GA7$ @+CAR +G and -@+0 +G$ respondents.

M0*07C(@.)0RR0RA$ J.: 'n this 6etition for Review on *ertiorari, the Rep!bli# see+s to ann!l the De#ision of the former *o!rt of =irst 'nstan#e of )ag!io and )eng!et 8)ran#h '''9, the dispositive portion of whi#h reads> 6R/M'2/2 *O@2'D/R/D, the Ao#al *ivil Registrar of )ag!io *ity is hereby ordered as prayed for that 8a9 the *ertifi#ate of Aive )irth of O2*AR 2I and the entries in the #orresponding *ivil Registry of )irths of the Ao#al *ivil Registry of )irths be #orre#ted by deleting the name H/stebanH as the name of his father and s!bstit!ting therein the tr!e, #orre#t and offi#ial name H6'AOH, so that the name of his 8Os#ar 2yHs9 father be read as F2I 6'AOF, 2I being the family name and 6'AO being the first name in the *hinese way of writing names, and 8b9 the *ertifi#ate of Aive )irth of BO2/ 2I as well as the #orresponding entries in the *ivil Registry of )irths of the *ity Registrar of )ag!io be #orre#ted so that the name BO/ be #orre#ted to read as FBO2/F, after the re$!ired fees have been paid and the re$!irements of the law shall have been #omplied with. 2O ORD/R/D. 'n a verified 6etition filed before the lower *o!rt 82pe#. 6ro#. *ase @o. 88? J&?K9, private respondents so!ght to #orre#t the entries in the respe#tive Registries of )irth of Os#ar 2y and Bose 2y. ,he entry so!ght to be #orre#ted in the birth re#ord of Os#ar 2y is the name of his father from F/steban 2yF to F2y 6iaoF !pon the #laim that F/stebanF is only his fatherHs ni#+name. And as to the birth re#ord of Bose 2y, it is prayed that the name FBoeF therein be #orre#ted to read FBoseF. 6etitioner opposed the #orre#tions re$!ested on the gro!nd that the remedy availed of was improper #onsidering that the #hanges so!ght are s!bstantial in nat!re.

After a f!ll-dress hearing, respondent *o!rt a!thori5ed the #orre#tions prayed for, hen#e, this appeal in so far as the #orre#tion of the entry in the re#ord of birth of Os#ar 2y is #on#erned. ,h!s, the #orre#tion ordered entered in the birth re#ord of Bose 2y has be#ome final and e:e#!tory. ,he prin#ipal gro!nd relied !pon in this appeal is that R!le 1.8 of the R!les of *o!rt !pon whi#h private respondents an#hor their 6etition is appli#able only to #hanges #ontemplated in Arti#le 41? of the *ivil *ode, whi#h are #leri#al or inno#!o!s errors, or to #orre#tions that are not #ontroversial and are s!pported by ind!bitable eviden#e. 1 't is tr!e that the #hange from /steban 2y to 2y 6iao wo!ld ne#essarily affe#t the 'dentity of the father. 9 'n that sense, it #an be said to be s!bstantial. 1owever, we find ind!bitable eviden#e to s!pport the #orre#tion prayed for. 'n the Alien *ertifi#ate of Registration of the father 8/:hibit F*F9, his name appears as F2y 6iaoF. ,he same is tr!e in his 'mmigrant *ertifi#ate of Residen#e 8/:hibit F*-< F9. 'n the FRe#ord of Ann!al Report in 6erson of AlienF of the father from 19&1 yearly !p to 19(4, he always signed his name as F2y 6iaoF. 1is 'n#ome ,a: Ret!rn for the #alendar year 19(? also lists his name as F2y 6iaoF 8/:hibit F0-1F9. ,he s#hool re#ords of Os#ar 2y both in high s#hool and at 2t. Ao!is Cniversity in )ag!io, re#orded the name of his father as F2y 6iaoF 8/:hibits F=F and F=-1F9. Os#ar 2y and Bose 2y are brothers of the f!ll blood. And yet, in their respe#tive birth #ertifi#ates, it is only in Os#arHs birth #ertifi#ate that the name of their father listed as F/steban 2y.F 'n BoseHs birth #ertifi#ate, his fatherHs name is F2y 6iaoF. ,estimonial eviden#e was li+ewise presented showing that /steban is the fatherHs ni#+name by whi#h he was +nown by his =ilipino friends. ,hat e:plains why Mrs. =eli#idad Meris, who attended to Os#arHs birth, s!pplied the fatherHs name as F/steban 2yF. ,he mother, Aee 0io+ Ian, also %oined the 6etition and de#lared that 2y 6iao is her h!sband and the father of Os#ar and Bose and their fo!r other #hildren. 4e find no reason to do!bt that F2y 6iaoF and F/steban 2yF are one and the same person. 'n the #ase of "y 'ong "in vs! (ep$blic, 94 6hil. <?1 819549, as well as s!bse$!ent #ases predi#ated thereon, we forbade only the entering of material #orre#tions in the re#ord of birth by virt!e of a %!dgment in a s$mmary a#tion. ,he pro#eedings below, altho!gh filed !nder R!le 1.8 of the R!les of *o!rt, were not s!mmary. ,he 6etition was p!blished by order of the lower *o!rt on#e a wee+ for three #onse#!tive wee+s in a newspaper of general #ir#!lation in a##ordan#e with law. ,he 2oli#itor 0eneral was served with #opy of the 6etition as well as with noti#es of hearings. 1e filed his Opposition to the 6etition. ,he Ao#al *ivil Registrar of the *ity of )ag!io was li+ewise d!ly served with #opy of the 6etition. A =is#al was always in attendan#e at the hearings in representation of the 2oli#itor 0eneral. 1e parti#ipated a#tively in the pro#eedings, parti#!larly, in the #ross-e:amination of witnesses. And, notwithstanding that all interested persons were #ited to appear to show #a!se why the petition sho!ld not be granted, no one appeared to oppose e:#ept the 2tate thro!gh the 2oli#itor 0eneral. )!t neither did the 2tate present eviden#e in s!pport of its Opposition. 'n s!m, no do!bt has been #ast on the #redibility of private respondentsH allegations nor !pon the eviden#e add!#ed by them. @oteworthy also is the fa#t that neither the #iti5enship, paternity, filiation, or stat!s of Os#ar and Bose, nor that of their father is in iss!e. 41/R/=OR/, the %!dgment !nder review is hereby affirmed. @o #osts. 2O ORD/R/D.