REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG-MAGPAYO (A.K.A. JULIAN EDWARD
EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG), G.R. No. 189476, February 2, 2011
“x x x.
As for the requirement of
notice and publication, Rule 108 provides:
“SEC. 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. “
“SEC. 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. (emphasis and underscoring
supplied) .”
A reading of these related
provisions readily shows that Rule 108 clearly mandates two sets of notices
to different “potential oppositors.”
The first notice is that given
to the “persons named in the petition” and the second (which is through publication) is that given to other
persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered
interested or affected parties, such as creditors. That two sets of notices are mandated under
the above-quoted Section 4 is validated by the subsequent Section 5, also
above-quoted, which provides for two periods (for the two types of “potential
oppositors”) within which to file an opposition (15 days from notice or from the last date of
publication).
This is the overriding
principle laid down in Barco v. Court of
Appeals.[1] X x x x:
x x x x
The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind
the whole world to the subsequent judgment on the petition. The
sweep of the decision would cover even parties who should have been impleaded
under Section 3, Rule 108 but were inadvertently left out. x x x x.[1]
(emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied).”
Meanwhile, in Republic
v. Kho,[2] Carlito
Kho (Carlito) and his siblings named the civil registrar as the sole respondent
in the petition they filed for the correction of entries in their respective
birth certificates in the civil registry of Butuan City, and correction of
entries in the birth certificates of Carlito’s minor children. Carlito and his siblings requested the
correction in their birth certificates of the citizenship of their mother
Epifania to “Filipino,” instead of “Chinese,” and the deletion of the word
“married” opposite the phrase “Date of marriage of parents” because their
parents ─ Juan and Epifania ─ were not married.
And Carlito requested the correction in the birth certificates of their
children of his and his wife’s date of marriage to reflect the actual date of
their marriage as appearing in their marriage certificate. In the course of the hearing of the petition,
Carlito also sought the correction of the name of his wife from Maribel to “Marivel.”
X x x.
On the issue of whether
the failure to implead Marivel and the Khos’ parents rendered the trial of the
petition short of the required adversary proceedings and the trial court’s
judgment void, this Court held that when all the procedural requirements under
Rule 108 are followed, the publication of the notice of hearing cures the
failure to implead an indispensable party.
In so ruling, the Court noted that the affected parties were already
notified of the proceedings in the case since the petitioner-siblings Khos were the ones who initiated the petition
respecting their prayer for correction of their citizenship, and Carlito
respecting the actual date of his marriage to his wife; and, with respect to
the Khos’ petition for change of their civil status from legitimate to
illegitimate, their mother Epifania herself took the witness stand declaring
that she was not married to their father.
What is clear then in Barco and Kho is the mandatory directive under Section 3 of Rule 108 to
implead the civil registrar and
the parties who would naturally and legally be affected by the grant of
a petition for correction or cancellation of entries. Non-impleading, however, as party-respondent
of one who is inadvertently left out or is not established to be known by the
petitioner to be affected by the grant of the petition or actually participates
in the proceeding is notified through publication.
IN FINE, when a petition for cancellation or correction of
an entry in the civil register involves substantial
and controversial alterations
including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or
legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108
of the Rules of Court is mandated.
X x x.”
