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.
On petition before this
Court after the Court of Appeals found that the order of the trial court
involved a question of law, the Court nullified the trial court’s order directing
the change of Emperatriz’ civil status and the filiation of her child Victoria
in light of the following observations:
“x x x x Aside
from the Office of the Solicitor General, all
other indispensable parties should have been made respondents. They include
not only the declared father of the child but the child as well,
together with the paternal grandparents, if any, as their hereditary rights
would be adversely affected thereby. All
other persons who may be affected by the change should be notified or
represented. The truth is best
ascertained under an adversary system of justice.
The right of the child Victoria to inherit from her
parents would be substantially impaired if her status would be changed from
“legitimate” to “illegitimate.” Moreover,
she would be exposed to humiliation and embarrassment resulting from the stigma
of an illegitimate filiation that she will bear thereafter. The fact that the notice of hearing of the
petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof
was served upon the State will not
change the nature of the proceedings taken.
Rule 108, like all the other provisions of the Rules of Court, was
promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making authority under
Section 13, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution, which directs that such
rules “shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.” If Rule 108 were to be extended beyond
innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors which are visible to the
eye or obvious to the understanding, so as to comprehend substantial and
controversial alterations concerning citizenship,
legitimacy of paternity or
filiation, or legitimacy of marriage,
without observing the proper proceedings as earlier mentioned, said rule
would thereby become an unconstitutional
exercise which would tend to
increase or modify substantive rights. This
situation is not contemplated under Article 412 of the Civil Code.[1]
(emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied) .”
X x x.”
