Here, petitioners argue that the Petition they filed before the RTC is not for the purpose of remarriage but for the cancellation of the entry in the civil register of Local Civil Registry in Manila because their previous marriage was void for lack of marriage license. We do not agree.
Rule 108, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court provide:
RULE 108
Cancellation Or Correction O[f] Entries In The Civil Registry
Section 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Court of First Instance of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.
Sec. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. — Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) Judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (g) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.
The said Rule may be used only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical, and other innocuous errors in the Civil Registry. In Republic v. Benemerito,[25] this Court defined a clerical error as follows:
A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing, or a harmless change such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parent. On the other hand, substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due process is properly observed.[26] (Citations omitted)
Moreso, in Republic v. Olaybar,[27] this Court held that a trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court:
To be sure, a petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under the Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws. Among these safeguards are the requirement of proving the limited grounds for the dissolution of marriage, support pendente lite of the spouses and children, the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses[,] and the investigation o( the public prosecutor to determine collusion. A direct action for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage is also necessary to prevent circumvention of the jurisdiction of the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8369), as a petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry may be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the corresponding civil registry is located. In other words, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve his marriage by the mere expedient of changing his entry of marriage in the civil registry.[28] (Citation omitted, emphasis supplied)
In a similar vein, the main cause of action of petitioners in their Petition[29] filed before the RTC is to seek the declaration of their previous marriage as void ab initio. Petitioners stated that the cancellation of the entry in the civil register or the Local Civil Registry of Manila of their marriage contract will remove the irregularities as to the validity of their marriage.[30]
This action is not governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.[31] Notably, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court does not extend to cancellation of documents like the marriage contract which has the effect of declaring the marriage null and void.
Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 8369[32] provides:
Section 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. — The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
. . . .
d)
Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains[.]
In the case at bar, petitioners are seeking for the cancellation of their marriage contract because it is void ab initio due to the absence of a marriage license, and not merely to cancel a specific entry in the marriage contract. Thus, the issue of whether petitioners' marriage should be declared void ab initio is within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Family Courts to hear and decide.
Notably, the RTC dismissed the Petition without prejudice. Here, there was no trial on the merits as the case was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and petitioners could not have appealed the order of dismissal as the same was a dismissal without prejudice. Rule 41, Section 1(h), of the Rules of Court states that no appeal may be taken from an order dismissing an action without prejudice. Indeed, there is no residual jurisdiction to speak of where no appeal has even been filed.
Jurisprudence has distinguished a dismissal with prejudice from a dismissal without prejudice. The former disallows and bars the refiling of the complaint; whereas, the same cannot be said of a dismissal without prejudice.[33] Thus, the case can be re-filed, tried, and resolved in the appropriate proceeding.
From the foregoing discussion, the RTC properly dismissed the Petition because the allegations and reliefs prayed for by petitioners fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Family Court. Nevertheless, the dismissal was made without prejudice. Hence, petitioners can re-file the same in an appropriate proceeding before the Family Court.
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 27, 2024 and Resolution dated October 21, 2024 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 176229 are AFFIRMED. Branch 50, Regional Trial Court, Manila has no jurisdiction to try and hear the Petition for Cancellation of Entry in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court filed by Ramon C. Ferreros and Dulce T. Ferreros. This is without prejudice to the filing of Ramon C. Ferreros and Dulce T. Ferreros of the appropriate action before the proper court.
SO ORDERED."
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 276941, April 07, 2026 ]
SPOUSES RAMON C. FERREROS AND DULCE T. FERREROS, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRY, MANILA, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRY, QUEZON CITY, OUR LADY OF LOURDES CHURCH, AND PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENT CHURCH, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
LOPEZ, J.:
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70560
(Assisted by ChatGPT AI research)
