THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 233520, March 06, 2019

ROICE ANNE F. FOX, PETITIONER, v. THE PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY

AND THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

Remedial Law; Special Proceedings; Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry; Venue; A
petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry concerning the civil status of
persons which has been recorded in the civil register may be filed with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.—To
be clear, the petition filed before the RTC was a petition for correction of entry which,
under Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, must be filed in the RTC where the
corresponding civil registry is located. The Rule provides: 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
[Regional Trial Court] of the province where the corresponding civil registry is
located. Section 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) marriage; (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; j) 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. Based on the abovementioned rule, a petition for the cancellation or correction
of any entry concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil
register may be filed with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry
is located.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Given that Rule 108 pertains to a special proceeding, the
specific provisions stated thereunder, particularly on venue, must be observed in order
to vest the court with jurisdiction.—It bears stressing that Rule 108 is a special
proceeding for which specific rules apply. In Fujiki v. Marinay, 700 SCRA 69 (2013), the
Court noted, thus: Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that “[a] special
proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact.” Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify facts of a person’s life which are
recorded by the State pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753. These are
facts of public consequence such as birth, death or marriage, which the State has an
interest in recording. Given that Rule 108 pertains to a special proceeding, the specific
provisions stated thereunder, particularly on venue, must be observed in order to vest
the court with jurisdiction.

Same; Same; Same; Local Civil Registrar; The inescapable consequence of the failure
to implead the civil registrar is that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) will not acquire
jurisdiction over the case or, if proceedings were conducted, to render the same a
nullity.—The petition likewise failed to comply with other jurisdictional requirements
such as impleading the civil registrar and all persons who may have a claim or interest
in the correction sought. The local civil registrar is an indispensable party for which no
final determination of the case can be reached. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, 255
SCRA 99 (1996), the Court reiterated the importance of impleading the civil registrar on
petitions filed under Rule 108, viz.: The local civil registrar is thus required to be made
a party to the proceeding. He is an indispensable party, without whom no final
determination of the case can be had. As he was not impleaded in this case much less
given notice of the proceeding, the decision of the trial court, insofar as it granted the
prayer for the correction of entry, is void. The absence of an indispensable party in a
case renders ineffectual all the proceedings subsequent to the filing of the complaint
including the judgment. The inescapable consequence of the failure to implead the civil
registrar is that the RTC will not acquire jurisdiction over the case or, if proceedings
were conducted, to render the same a nullity.4 Fox vs. Philippine Statistics Authority,
895 SCRA 436, G.R. No. 233520 March 6, 2019

A. REYES, JR., J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by
Roice Anne F. Fox (petitioner), assailing the Orders dated March 24, 2017 1 and July 24,
20172 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54 of Davao City, which dismissed
outright her petition for correction of entry on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Antecedent Facts

On October 29, 2012, petitioner married Thomas Kenneth K. Fox (Thomas), a Canadian
citizen, in a ceremony held at the Grand Regal Hotel in Lanang, Davao City. Right after
their union, they flew to Thomas's hometown in Weyburn, Saskatchewan, Canada
where they have decided to settle and raise a family. Not long thereafter, the petitioner
conceived and gave birth to a baby girl, whom they named Zion Pearl Fox (Zion), on
June 27, 2015. The fact of birth of the petitioner's daughter was duly registered at the
Registrar's Office in Regina Saskatchewan, Canada, which issued the corresponding
birth certificate. In the said certificate, the petitioner's minor daughter's birthdate was
correctly stated as June 27, 2015. Thereafter, in October 2015, her daughter was
issued a Canadian passport which also properly reflected the exact date of birth of the
child.3

On June 7, 2016, considering that the petitioner's daughter was born outside of the
Philippines, the Philippine Consulate Office (PCO) in Calgary, Alberta submitted a Report
of Birth4 of the child to the national office of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in
Manila. Unfortunately, through oversight or mistake, the PCO erroneously indicated the
child's birthdate as June 27, 2016, instead of June 27, 2015, in the said Report of Birth.
The petitioner brought the said discrepancy to the attention of the concerned officials of
the PCO which, instead of taking immediate action, advised her to file a petition before
the proper court in the Philippines for the correction of entry in the Report of Birth of
her daughter.5

Ruling of the RTC

On January 17, 2017, the petitioner filed before the RTC of Davao City, where she was
a resident, a Petition6 entitled "In the Matter of the Petition of Roice Anne F. Fox to
Correct in the Report of Birth under Registration Number 2016-124030 the Year of
Birth of Her Minor Daughter Zion Pearl F. Fox From June 27, 2016 to June 27, 2015,"
which was docketed as SP Case No. R-DV0-17-00181-SP. In an Order 7 dated March 24,
2017, however, the RTC motu proprio dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. The pertinent portions of the order read, thus:

Acting on the petition, this court cites Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure which provides for the Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil
Registry, as follows:

Section 1, Rule 108

"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 [Regional Trial Court]
of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located."

xxxx

Evidently, the Regional Trial Court in Davao City has no jurisdiction over the instant
petition which seeks to direct the Philippine Statistics Authority in Manila to make the
correction of entry in the report of birth of Zion Pearl F. Fox made by the Philippine
Consulate Office of Calgary, Alberta, Canada to the said office in Manila.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the instant petition is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.8

On April 10, 2017, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 9 but the same was
denied in the Order10 dated July 24, 2017, which pertinently states:

In the instant petition, the fact of birth of petitioner’s daughter Zion Pearl F. Fox was
reported by petitioner to the Philippine Consulate in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, which in
turn caused to be recorded directly said fact of birth before the Philippine Statistics
Authority (PSA) in Manila and not to any local civil registrar. Consequently, the Petition
for Correction of Entry in the Report of Birth of Zion Pearl F. Fox recorded directly
before the Philippine Statistics Office in Manila should have been filed before the
Regional Trial Court in Manila pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
There is no evidence that said fact of birth was recorded in the Civil Registry of Davao
City. Consequently, the Regional Trial Court in Davao City is NOT the proper venue of
the instant petition for correction of entry in the report of birth of the minor daughter of
the petitioner.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.11

The petitioner turns to this Court for relief in a petition for review on certiorari raising a
pure question of law, particularly whether the RTC was correct in motu
proprio dismissing her petition for correction of entry on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.

Ruling of the Court

The petition lacks merit.

In the assailed Order dated March 24, 2017, the RTC motu proprio dismissed the
petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that the proper court is the RTC of
Manila, where the PSA Office, in which the Report of Birth of the petitioner's daughter
was registered, is situated.

To be clear, the petition filed before the RTC was a petition for correction of entry
which, under Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, must be filed in the RTC
where the corresponding civil registry is located. The Rule provides:

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 [Regional Trial Court] of the province where the
corresponding civil registry is located.

Section 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) marriage; (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; U)
naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (1) civil interdiction; (m)
judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o)
changes of name.

Based on the above-mentioned rule, a petition for the cancellation or correction of any
entry concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register
may be filed with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is
located.

It bears stressing that Rule 108 is a special proceeding for which specific rules apply.
In Fujiki v. Marinay,12 the Court noted, thus:

Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a] special proceeding is a
remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact." Rule
108 creates a remedy to rectify facts of a person's life which are recorded by the State
pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753. These are facts of public
consequence such as birth, death or marriage, which the State has an interest in
recording.13

Given that Rule 108 pertains to a special proceeding, the specific provisions stated
thereunder, particularly on venue, must be observed in order to vest the court with
jurisdiction.
Apart from the foregoing, the petition likewise failed to comply with other jurisdictional
requirements such as impleading the civil registrar and all persons who may have a
claim or interest in the correction sought. The local civil registrar is an indispensable
party for which no final determination of the case can be reached. In Republic v. Court
of Appeals,14 the Court reiterated the importance of impleading the civil registrar on
petitions filed under Rule 108, viz.:

The local civil registrar is thus required to be made a party to the proceeding. He is an
indispensable party, without whom no final determination of the case can be had. As he
was not impleaded in this case much less given notice of the proceeding, the decision of
the trial court, insofar as it granted the prayer for the correction of entry, is void. The
absence of an indispensable party in a case renders ineffectual all the proceedings
subsequent to the filing of the complaint including the judgment. 15

The inescapable consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar is that the RTC
will not acquire jurisdiction over the case or, if proceedings were conducted, to render
the same a nullity. In Republic, the Court emphasized, thus:

The necessary consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar as an

indispensable party and to give notice by publication of the petition for correction of
entry was concerned, null and void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the
subject matter.16

In view of the defects in the filing of the petition, the RTC of Davao City cannot be
faulted in dismissing the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the
dismissal is without prejudice to the refilling of the petition in the proper court, with full
compliance to the specific requirements of Rule 108.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Orders dated March 24, 2017 and July 24,
2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54 of Davao City are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.