Prepared by:

Judge CYNTHIA MARTINEZ FLORENDO

Article 19, CC
Every person must, in the exercise
of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due
and observe honesty and good
faith
1. The existence of a legal right or
duty;
2. Which is exercised in bad faith;
and
3. For the sole intent of prejudicing
or injuring another
(Persons and Family Relations by
Albano, 2006 Ed., p. 76)
Every person who, contrary to law,
willfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same.

Note: The principle in this article is

founded on the basic rule under
Article 100 of the RPC.
Any person who willfully causes
loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy
shall compensate the latter for the
damage.
1. There is an act which is legal;
2. But which is contrary to morals,
good custom, public order or
public policy; and
3. It is done with intent to injure
(Albano, p. 67)
Note: Recovery of damage even
without positive law (id, 105).
A practice or custom is, as a
general rule, not a source of a
legally demandable or
enforceable right . (Makati Stock
Exchange Inc. vs campos, Etc. G.
R. No. 138814, April 16, 2009)
The act complained of must be
intentional (Nikko Hotel Manila
Garden, et al., vs. Roberto Reyes
alias “Amay Bisaya,” G.R. No.
154259, February 28, 2005)
To justify an award for moral and
exemplary damages under Articles
19 to 21, the claimant must establish
the other party’s malice or bad faith
by clear and convincing evidence
(Solidbank Corp. vs Mindanao
Ferroalloy Corp.., et al., G.R. No.
153535, July 25, 2005)
Psychological incapacity means that one is
truly incognitive of the basic marital
covenants that one must assume and
discharge as a consequence of marriage, it
removes the basis for the contention that the
petitioner purposely deceived the respondent.
If the private respondent was deceived, it was
not due to a willful act on the part of the
petitioner. Therefore, the award of damages
has no basis in law and in fact (Buenaventura
vs CA et al., G.R. Nos. 127358, 1273449,
March 31, 2005)
Example given by Code Commission:
“Without A’s knowledge, flood drives
his cattle to the cultivated highland of
B. A’s cattle are saved but B’s crop is
destroyed, true, A was not at fault but
he was benefited. It is but right and
equitable that he should indemnify B”
(Report of the Code Commission, pp
41-42)
“ This provision is designed to protect
those who at a disadvantaged position
by reason of:
1. Moral dependence;
2. Ignorance;
3. Indigence;
4. Mental weakness;
5. Tender age;
6. Other handicap “
Article 24 is designed to
implement the principle parens
patriae

Who implements the same?

Courts
Transactions involving real properties
with Non- Christian Filipinos must be
approved by the governor of the
place, otherwise, it is void (Heirs of
John Sycip, et al., vs CA, G.R. No.
76487, Nov. 9, 1990)
(Sections 145 and 146 of the Revised
Administrative Code of Mindanao and
Sulu, Section 120 of the Public Land
Act, R.A. No. 3872)
To guard the patrimony of
illiterate non-Christians from
those who are inclined to prey
upon their ignorance or ductility.
(Amarante vs CA, G,R, No. 76386,
October 26, 1987)
Application of the principle of parens patriae
in a rape case:
“Where the victims of rape are of tender years,
there is a marked receptivity on the part of
the courts to lend credence of their version of
what transpired, a matter not to be wondered
at, since the State as parens patriae , is under
obligation to minimize the risk of harm to
those who, because of their minority, are not
yet able to fully protect themselves.” (People
vs Casipit, 232 SCRA 638)
“Vigilant for his protection” means doubt
must be resolved in favor of the underdog.
In labor contracts, doubts are resolved in
favor of the decent living and safety of the
worker.

Workmen’s Compensation Act being a social

legislation should be given a literal
interpretation in order to fully carry into
effect its beneficient provisions
There appears to be no justification
for relaxing the rules of procedure in
favor of the employer and not taking
the same action in the case of the
employees, particularly in light of the
principle that technical rules of
procedure shall be liberally construed
in favor of the working class in
accordance with the demands of
substantial justice.
Where the circumstances evidently show that
the employer imposed the period precisely to
preclude the employee from acquiring
tenurial security, the law and this Court will
not hesitate to strike down or disregard the
period as contrary to public, policy, morals,
etc. in such case, the general restrictive rule
under Art. 280 of the Labor Code will apply
and the employee shall be deemed regular
(Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp v. Rene
Cabati, G.R. No. 186439, Jan. 15, 2014)
Art. 390. After an absence of seven
years, it being unknown whether
or not the absentee still lives, he
shall be presumed dead for all
purposes, except for those of
succession.
Art. 390 par. 2
The absentee shall not be presumed
dead for the purpose of opening his
succession till after an absence of ten
years. If he disappeared after the age
of seventy five, an absence of five
years shall be sufficient in order that
his succession may be opened.
The wife of an absent spouse
sought to have a judicial
declaration that her husband is
presumed dead.
Ruling: Judicial declaration that
petitioner’s husband is presumed dead
cannot be entertained because it is not
authorized by law and if such
declaration cannot be in a special
proceeding, much less can the Court
determine the status of the petitioner
as a widow since the matter must
necessarily depend upon the fact of
the death of the husband.”
The Court said that “it can
declare, upon proper evidence,
that he is dead, but not to decree
that he is merely presumed dead.”
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person
during the subsistence of a previous marriage
shall be null and void, unless before the
celebration of the subsequent marriage, the
prior spouse had been absent for four
consecutive years and the spouse present had
a well-founded belief that the absent spouse
was already dead. In case of disappearance
where there is danger of death, (Art. 391 CC),
an absence of only two years shall be
sufficient.
The following shall be presumed dead for all
purposes, including the division of the estate
among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea
voyage, or an aeroplane which is missing,
who has not been heard of for four years
since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;
(2) A person in the armed forces who has taken
part in war, and has been missing for four
years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death
under other circumstances and his
existence has not been known for four
years.
Art. 392. If the absentee appears, or without
appearing his existence is proved, he shall
recover his property in the condition in
which it may be found, and the price of any
property that may have been alienated or
the property acquired therewith; but he
cannot claim either fruits or rents.
For the purpose of contracting the
subsequent marriage, the spouse
present must institute a summary
proceeding as provided in this Code
for the declaration of presumptive
death of the absentee, without
prejudice to the effect of reappearance
of the absent spouse.
Absence is that special legal status of one who
is not in his domicile, his whereabouts
unknown and it is uncertain whether he is
dead or alive.
Ordinary absence- absentee disappeared under
normal circumstances and without apparent
danger.
Qualified absence- absentee disappeared
under extraordinary circumstances or with
apparent danger (1 Casta 175; 2 Manresa 97
as cited by Albano)
Special Proceeding- remedy by
which a person seeks to establish
a status, a right or a particular
fact (Heirs of Yaptinchay et al.,
vs. Del Rosario, et al;, G.R. No.
124.320, March 2, 1999 as cited
in the case of Republic of the
Philippines vs. CA et al.,)
Section 3(a), Rule 1, 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure provides: “ A civil
action is one by which a party
sues another for the enforcement
or protection of a right, or the
prevention of redress of a wrong.”
For purposes of appeal.
Special proceeding: period to
appeal: 30 days: notice of appeal
plus record on appeal to be filed
with the trial court to perfect the
appeal (Section 2[a], Rule 41 of
the Rules of Court)
Ordinary action: period to appeal
is 15 days from notice or decision
or order appealed from: appeal is
perfected by notice of appeal
(Section 3, Rule 41, 1997 Rules of
Court)
“By the trial court’s citation of Art.
41FC, it is gathered that the petition
of Apolinaria Jomoc to have her absent
spouse declared presumptively dead
had for its purpose her desire to
contract a valid subsequent marriage.
Ergo, the petition for that purpose is a
‘summary proceeding’ following above
quoted Art. 41, par. 2 of the FC.”
The Court of Appeals would be
committing grave reversible error
if it failed to dismiss, on ground
of lack of jurisdiction, appeals
from judgments of RTCs in
petitions for declaration of
presumptive death, by mandate of
express provision of Art. 247 FC
“The judgment of the Court shall be
immediately final and executory.”
This case settled the rule regarding
appeal of judgments rendered in
summary proceedings under the FC.
The previous decisions were refined,
thus:
Art. 238 FC, under Title IX: SUMMARY
PROCEEDINGS IN THE FAMILY LAW,
establishes the rules that govern
summary court proceedings in the FC
 Art. 238: Until modified by the
Supreme Court,, the procedural rules
in this Title shall apply in all cases
provided for in this Code requiring
summary court proceedings, such
cases shall be decided in expeditious
manner without regard to technical
rules.
Art. 253. the foregoing rules in
Chapters 2 and 3 hereof shall
likewise govern summary
proceedings filed under Articles
41, 51, 69, 73, 96, 124 and 217,
insofar as they applicable
By express provision of law, the
judgment of the court in a summary
proceeding shall be immediately final
and executory. As a matter of course,
it follows that no appeal can be had of
the trial court’s judgment in a
summary proceeding for the
declaration of presumptive death of an
absent spouse under Art. 41 of the FC.
…An aggrieved party may file a
petition for certiorari to question
abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction. Such petition
should be filed in the CA in
accordance with the Doctrine of
Hierarchy of Courts.
In sum, under Art. 41 FC, the losing party in a
summary proceeding for the declaration of
presumptive death may file a petition for
certiorari with the CA on the ground that, in
rendering judgment thereon, the trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. From the
decision of the CA, the aggrieved party may
elevate the matter to this Court (SC) via a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court.
The RTC decision is immediately
final and executory upon notice to
the parties, by express provision
of Art. 247 FC. The decision is
therefore not subject to ordinary
appeal, and the attempt to
question it through Notice of
Appeal is unavailing”
Section 1. Appointment of representative.
When a person disappears from his domicile,
his whereabouts being unknown, and without
having left an agent to administer his
property, or the power conferred upon the
agent has expired, any interested party,
relative or friend, may petition the CFI of the
place where the absentee resided before his
disappearance for the appointment of a
person to represent him provisionally in all
that maybe necessary. x x x
“Considering that neither the
petition alleges, nor the evidence
shows, that Roberto L. Reyes has
any rights, interest or property in
the Philippines, there is no point
in judicially declaring him an
absentee.”
Art. 384, CC; Rule: Section 2 (Rule
107) After the lapse of two years
from his disappearance and
without any news about the
absentee or since the receipt of
the last news, or of five years in
case the absentee has left a
person in charge of the
administration of his property,
 The declaration of his absence
and appointment of a trustee
administrator may be applied for
by any of the following:
(a) The spouse present;
(b) The heirs instituted in a will, who
may present an authentic copy of the
same;
(c) The relatives who would succeed by
the law on intestacy; and
(d) Those who have over the property
of the absentee some right
The petition for the appointment of
a representative, or for the
declaration of absence and the
appointment of a trustee or an
administrator, must show the
following:
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b) The names, ages and residences of the
heirs instituted in the will, copy of which
shall be presented, and of the relatives who
would succeed by the law of intestacy;
(c) The names and residences of creditors
and others who may have any adverse
interest over the property of the absentee;
(d) The probable value, location, and
character of the property belonging to the
absentee.
Rule 131 Burden of proof and
presumptions

Section 3. Disputable presumptions. –

the following presumptions are
satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may
be contradicted and overcome by
other evidence:
(w) that after an absence of seven (7)
years, it being unknown whether or
not the absentee still lives, he is
considered dead for all purposes,
except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered
dead for the purpose of opening his
succession till after an absence of ten
(10) years. x x x
The following shall be considered dead
for all purposes including the division
of the state among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost
during a sea voyage, or an aircraft
which is missing who has not been
heard of for four years since the loss
of the vessel or aircraft;
(2) A member of the armed forces
who has taken part in armed
hostilities, and has been missing
for four years;
(3) A person who has been in
danger of death under either
circumstances and whose
existence has not been known for
four years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for
four consecutive years, the spouse present
may contract a subsequent marriage if he or
she has a well founded belief that the
absent spouse is already dead. In case of
disappearance where there is danger of
death under the circumstances hereinabove
provided, an absence of only two years shall
be sufficient for the purpose of contracting
subsequent marriage; see Art. 41FC
However, in any case before marrying
again, the spouse present must
institute a summary proceeding as
provided in the Family Code and in the
rules for declaration of presumptive
death of the absentee, without
prejudice to the reappearance of the
absent spouse.
The subsequent marriage shall be
automatically terminated by the (1)
recording of the affidavit of
reappearance of the absent spouse,
unless there is judgment annulling the
previous marriage or declaring it void
ab initio.
(2) A sworn statement of the fact and
circumstances of reappearance shall be
recorded in the civil registry of the
residence of the parties to the subsequent
marriage at the instance of any interested
person, with due notice to the spouses of
the subsequent marriage and without
prejudice to the fact of reappearance being
judicially determined in case such fact is
disputed.
Art. 43 FC.
(1) The children of the subsequent
marriage conceived prior to its
termination shall be considered
legitimate, and their custody and
support in case of dispute shall be
decide by the court in a proper
proceeding. (Present spouse has a
right to dispute the reappearance)
The ACP or CPG, as the case maybe, shall be:
(a) dissolved and liquidated,
(b) if either spouse contracted said
marriage in bad faith, his or her share (net
profits, shall be forfeited in favor of :
1. common children;
2. children of guilty spouse in previous
marriage;
3. innocent spouse (See Art. 63 par. [2]
FC, ) Recognizes the validity of second
marriage)
(3) Donations by reason of
marriage shall remain valid,
except that if donee contracted
the marriage in bad faith,
donation made to the donee shall
be revoked by operation of law;
(same as Art. 63 par. 4 FC on
legal separation)
(4) The innocent spouse may
revoke the designation of the
other spouse who acted in bad
faith as beneficiary in any
insurance policy, even if such
designation be stipulated as
irrevocable; and
(5) The spouse who contracted
the subsequent marriage in bad
faith shall be disqualified to
inherit from the innocent spouse
by testate and intestate
succession.
Art. 384. Two years having elapsed
without any news about the
absentee or since the receipt of
the last news, and five years in
case the absentee has left a
person in charge of the
administration of his property, his
absence may be declared.
“ The petition to declare a husband an
absentee and the petition to place the
management of the conjugal
properties in the hands of the wife
may be combined and adjudicated in
the same proceedings . The purpose
of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of
suits. (Peyer vs Martinez, 88 Phil. 72,
80)
Art. 386. The judicial declaration
of absence shall not take effect
until six months after its
publication in a general
circulation.
Art. 388 CC. Acts of selling or
encumbering properties are acts
of ownership, wife or
administrator as the case maybe
must have judicial authority to do
so.
Art. 389:
(1) Personal appearance of absentee
or by agent;
(2) Death of absentee;
(3) Third person acquired
absentee’s property by purchase
or other title;
Art. 394 CC Upon the opening of a
succession (Art. 777CC) to which
the absentee is called, his share
shall accrue to his co-heirs,
unless he has heirs, assigns or
representatives
Art. 395 says apply the rules on
succession.

Succession says that if an

absentee is called upon to inherit,
his share shall accrue to his co-
heirs, as a rule. (Art. 1015 CC)
Art. 395. x x x without prejudice
to the action or petition for
inheritance or other rights which
are vested in the absentee, his
representatives or successors in
interest, i.e., to his heirs by right
of represenattion.
What shall be recorded in the Civil
Register?
1. Acts
2. Events
3. Judicial decrees
Concerning the CIVIL STATUS of
persons
No entry in a civil register shall be
changed or corrected without a
judicial order.
1. Correction of a clerical or
typographical error; and /or
2. Change of first name and
nickname (Section 1, Section 3,
par. [1])
1. Any person having direct or
personal interest;
2. With the local civil registry office
of the city or municipality where
the record sought to be
corrected or changed is kept
(Section 3, par. 1)
1. Petitioner already migrated to
another place in the country;
2. Not practical for such party, in terms
of transportation expenses, time and
effort to appear in person;
3. Petition shall be filed with local civil
registrar of the residence;
4. The two local civil registrars will
communicate (Section 3, par. [3])
They can file their petition to the
nearest Philippine Consulates
(Section 3, par. [3]
1. Payment of fees except
indigents;
2. Posting of the petition in a
conspicuous place for ten days;
3. Render decision not later than
five days after the completion of
the posting and/or publication
(Sections 6, 8)
TO IMPUGN BY WAY OF OBJECTION
ON THE FF GROUNDS:
1. The error is not clerical or
typographical;
2. Correction affects the civil
status; and
3. Basis does not fall under Section
4
1. ridiculous; tainted with dishonor or
extremely difficult to write or
pronounce;
2. New first name or nickname has
been habitually and continuously used
by the petitioner and has been
publicly known by such name in the
community;
3. Change will avoid confusion
Amended R.A. 9048 by including in
Section 1 thereof the correction or
change:
1. In the day and month in the date of
birth;
2. Sex of a person
Where it is patently clear that there was
clerical or typographical error or
mistake (Section 1)
1. Petition must be accompanied by
earliest school record or earliest
school documents;
2. Publication at least once a week
for two consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation
“Portrait of dysfunction x x x The
judicial conferment of status of
illegitimacy on a daughter who is by law
legitimate has created a tangled braid of
various legal doctrines
Date filed: March 17, 1983
Prayer:
1. The child’s full name be made : June
Salvacion C. Gustilo ;
2. Name of father be changed from Francisco
Maravilla to Armando Gustilo
20 March 1983: Gustilo filed
“Constancia” acknowledging
daughter and posing no objection
to the petition
Order setting case for hearing was
published. However, Nadina filed
an amended petition impleading
Francisco and Gustilo as
respondents, hence, another
Order was published
Ground:
RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter and/ or nature of the suit
alleging that only innocuous or clerical
errors must be corrected under Rule
108. Petition seeks changes which are
substantial and controversial in
character which affect the filiation and
legitimacy of petitioner’s daughter.
In RTC Order, it noted that
Francisco had signified his
conformity to the action by
signing the original petition.
Likewise, it noted that Gustilo
acknowledged the child by
submitting a Constancia and
expressing no objection to the
petition.
An amended complaint
supersedes an original one (Rule
10, Section 8) As a consequence,
the original complaint is deemed
withdrawn and no longer
considered part of the record
(Mercado et al., v. Espina et al.,
G.R.No. 173987, Feb. 25, 2013
Nadina was impleaded as indispensable
party who countered:
1. Jose Vicente has not sufficiently
proven that he was a child of
Armando Gustilo;
2. There was neither extrinsic fraud or
lack of jurisdiction to justify
annulment sought.
Compromise Agreement: That the only
heirs of Armando Gustilo are
1. Nadina G. Gustilo
2. daughter June Salvacion Gustilo;
3. Son Jose Vicente Gustilo III;
4. Another daughter Mary Joy Ann
Gustilo
CIVIL STATUS CANNOT BE SUBJECT OF
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT (Art. 2035
CC)
Milagros Barco filed a Complaint-
in-Intervention in her capacity
and as guardian ad litem of her
daughter Mary Joy Ann Gustilo.
Grounds:
1. While both of them were not made
parties to the petition for Correction,
the subsequent notice and publication
of the Order setting the case for
hearing served as constructive notice
to all parties who might have an
interest to participate in the case;
2. Jose Vicente’s claim that he learned
of the RTC Order only on November of
1992 was found to be of no merit
because he filed a pleading with the
intestate court as early as 1987
alleging that June’s birth certificate
had been amended to record the name
of her true father.
Issues raised:
1. Failure to implead her in Nadina’s
petition deprived the RTC of
jurisdiction
2. That petition regarding innocuous
and clerical mistakes applies only
to citizenship cases beginning
with Republic vs Valencia
3. Petition was filed out of time as Art.
263 CC sets a prescriptive period for
impugning the legitimacy of a child
which is one year from the recording
of birth in the Civil Registry, if the
husband should be in the same place,
or in a proper case, any of his heirs;
4. Petition should have been treated as
change of name which can only be
filed by the person whose name is
sought to be changed;
5. RTC Order contravenes the legal
presumption that children born during
the pendency of a marriage are
legitimate and the rule that legitimate
children cannot adopt the surname of
a person who is not their father; and
6. The RTC should have excluded as
hearsay the Constancia allegedly
signed by Gustilo
Annulment of judgment- a remedy long
authorized and sanctioned in our
jurisdiction (Regalado, Iremedial law
Compendium 556)
As far back as 1918,this Court in Banco
Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca (37 Phil.
921) recognized the availability of a
direct attack of a final judgment on the
ground that it is void for lack of
jurisdiction.
The validity of a final judgment or
order of the court may be
attacked only by a direct action or
proceeding or by motion in
another case on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction (Reyes, v Datu,
94 Phil 446)
It was only in 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure that for the first time
the procedure for annulment of
judgment or final orders and
resolutions in civil cases of RTCs,
through a petition before the CA,
was formally provided in Rule 47
thereof.
Statutory basis: The Judiciary
Reorganization Actof 1980.
section 9 thereof vests in the CA
exclusive original jurisdiction over
actions for annulment of
judgments of the lower courts
Section 2 Rule 47 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly
provides two grounds:
1. Extrinsic fraud; and
2. Lack of jurisdiction
The basic rule of finality of judgment is
grounded on the fundamental
principle of public policy and sound
practice that at the risk of occasional
error, the judgment of courts and the
award of quasi-judicial agencies must
become final at some definite date
fixed by law. (Reyes v. CA, 264 SCRA
35)
As to jurisdiction over parties as raised
by petitioner Barco: Undoubtedly,
Barco is one of the parties referred to
in Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court because any judicial
determination that June was the
daughter of Armando Gustilo would
affect her ward’s share in the estate of
his father.
Even if Barco was not impleaded
in the petition, the CA correctly
pointed out that the defect was
cured by compliance with Section
4, Rule 108 which requires notice
by publication.
A petition for correction is an
action in rem, an action against a
thing and not against a person
(Paderanga v. Buissan, 226
SCRA786). The decision on the
petition binds not only the
parties thereto (Rule 108, Section
3) but the whole world (Meneses
v. CA, 246 SCRA 162
Publication is notice to the whole
world that the proceedings has for
its object to bar indefinitely all
who might be minded to make an
objection of any sort against the
right sought to be established.
(Republic v. Honorable Judge of
Branch III, 132 SCRA 462)
It is the publication of such notice
that brings in the whole world as
a party in the case and vests the
court with jurisdiction to hear and
decide it. (Adez Realty v. CA, G. R.
No. 100643, 14 August 1992)
Jurisdiction over the nature of the
action: conferred by law.
Since the promulgation of the Valencia
ruling in 1986 the Court has repeatedly
ruled that even substantial errors in a
civil registry may be corrected through
a petition filed under Rule 108, with
the true facts established and the
parties aggrieved in the error availing
themselves of the appropriate
adversarial proceedings.
Therefore, the Ty Kong Tin (94
Phil 321, 1956) pronouncements
that Art. 412 does not
contemplate matters that may
affect civil status, nationality or
citizenship is erroneous (Lee vs
CA, 419 Phil 312, 2001)
Lee also points out that R.A. 9048 enacted
in 2001, has effectively changed the nature
of a proceeding under Rule 108.x x x the
obvious effect is to remove from the ambit
of Rule 108 the correction or changing of
such errors in entries in the civil register.
Hence, what is left for the scope of
operation of Rule 108 are substantial
changes and corrections in entries of the
civil register.
As to prescription and that the
petition should be treated as
change of name: they both are not
well taken as they cannot allude
to lack of jurisdiction that would
render the RTC Order subject to
annulment.
Petitioner correctly notes that the RTC
erred in directing that the name of
Nadina’s daughter be changed from
“June SalvacionMaravilla” to “June
Salvacion Gustilo”. Following the trial
court’s determination that Gustilo
was the father of June, but
prescinding from the conclusive
presumption of legitimacy for the
nonce assuming it could be done, the
child would obviously be illegitimate.
The applicable laws mandate that
June, as an illegitimate child
should bear the surname of her
mother, and not the father (Art.
368 CC, repealed by Art. 176 FC
as amended by R.A. 9255)
The RTC’s error in ordering the
change of name is merely an error
in the exercise of jurisdiction
which neither affects the court’s
jurisdiction over Nadina’s petition
constitutes a ground for the
annulment of a final judgment
(Herrera v. Barretto, 29 Phil. 245)
It is of no moment that the RTC
Order contravenes the legal
presumption accorded June of
being legitimate child of Francisco
and Nadina. A review of the
records does indicate the
insufficiency of the evidence
offered to defeat the presumption
xx
It seems that the RTC relied
primarily on the testimony of
Nadina in adjudging that Gustilo,
and not Francisco, was the after
of June. Yet, Art. 256FC renders
ineffectual any pronouncement
against legitimacy made by the
mother.
The Court is now precluded from
reviewing the RTC’s appreciation
of the evidence, however
erroneous it may be, because the
Order is already final.
The RTC’s possible misappreciation of
evidence is again at most , an error in
the exercise of jurisdiction, which is
different from lack of jurisdiction.
These purported errors do not extend
to the competence of the RTC to
decide the matter and as such does
not constitute a valid ground to annul
a final order.
It is settled that a decision that has
acquired finality becomes immutable
and unalterable and may no longer be
modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct
erroneous conclusions of fact or law
and whether it will be made by the
court that rendered it or by the
highest court of the land (LBP v.
Poblete, G.R. No. 196577, February
25, 2013)