MILAGROS M. BARCO, as the Natural Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem of MARY JOY ANN GUSTILO, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL SIXTEENTH DIVISION), REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (BR. 133-MAKATI), NCJR; THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MAKATI; and NADINA G. MARAVILLA, respondents. January 20, 2004 J. Tinga Facts 1. Nadina and Francisco Maravilla married in 1970. 2. In February 1977, they separated. 3. In February 1978, a year after they separated, they obtained ecclesiastical annulment of marriage issued by the Catholic Diocese of Bacolod City. 4. In June 9, 1978, Nadina gave birth to a daughter, June Salvacion. On the birth certificate, Francisco was listed as the father. Nadina signed it. 5. Afterwards, Nadina claimed that the real father of June is Armando Gustilo, a former congressman. 6. At the time of Junes birth, Gustilo was still married to Consuelo Caraycong who later died on a naval accident. 7. In 1982, Nadina and Gustilo married in the US. 8. In 1985, the marriage between Nadina and Francisco was annulled. 9. In 1983, however, Nadina filed a petition for correction of Entries in the Certificate of Birth of her daughter in RTC Makati. a. Here, she alleged that she had been lawfully separated from Francisco since 1977 and that they didnt have sex within the first 20 days of the 300 days preceding the birth of June. b. And that Gustilo is the real father of June c. She prayed that the name would be corrected as June Salvacion C. Gustilo and the father, Armando Gustilo. d. (Francisco signed this petition.) e. (In accordance to Rule 108, the case was set for hearing and that the copy of the Order be published in a newspaper of general circulation.) 10.Gustilo filed a Constancia where he acknowledged June as his daughter.

11.Nadina filed an Amended Pleading impleading Gustilo and Francisco as respondents. 12.OSG filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter/ nature of the suit. OSG avers that only clerical errors may be corrected in petition for correction of entries. 13.MTD was denied. MR was denied. 14.RTC granted the petition effecting the corrections. RTC considered the fact that Nadinas uncle was the one who prepared the birth certificate and that she was in physical discomfort when she signed it. 15.In 1986, Gustilo died. Two Estate proceedings began. His son, Jose Vicent filed a petition for the annulment of the RTC order which effected the changes in the civil status of June to the CA. 16.Nadina filed a Comment saying that Jose Vicente hasnt proven if he really is a child of Gustilo nor there was extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction that annul the RTC order. 17.There was a compromise agreement that said the only heirs of Gustilo are Nadina, June, Jose Vicente and Mary Joy. This compromise agreement was voided on a petition filed by Jose Vicente. 18.Milagros Barco filed a motion for intervention with a complaint-in-intervention to the CA. In this, she alleged that Mary Joy, born 1977, is a daughter of Gustilo and that she and Gustilo had an affair since 1967 until Gustilo married Nadina. 19.CA dismissed both Jose Vicentes petition and Barcos intervention. Neither established lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud. 20.Barco filed an MR. MR denied. 21.Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. a. She raises the following issues: Barco should have been made a party to the Nadinas petition and the failure to implead her deprived the RTC of jurisdiction; This RTC could not have entertained Nadinas petition, since the Courts ruling in a long line of cases, beginning with Republic v. Valencia, that a petition for correction of entries in the civil register is not limited to innocuous or clerical mistakes, applies only to citizenship cases;

 The petition for correction was filed out of time, as Article 263 of the Civil Code of 1950 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; Nadinas petition should have been treated as a petition for change of name, which can only be filed by the person whose name is sought to be changed; The 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 The RTC should have excluded as hearsay the Constancia allegedly signed by Gustilo and that the surrounding circumstances under which it was issued gave reason to doubt its authenticity and credibility.

ISSUE : o Essentially, the issues raised can be summed up to just one issue: Whether or not the extraordinary remedy of annulment of judgment (RTC Order effecting the corrections) may be granted. NO.

RULING: o o Annulment of judgments is allowed only in exceptional cases. Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides only two grounds for annulment of judgment, namely: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. This express limitation is significant since previous jurisprudence recognized other grounds as well. The underlying reason is traceable to the notion that annulling final judgments goes against the grain of finality of judgment. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. 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 quasijudicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law. Even if the rule on annulment of judgment is grounded on equity, the relief is of an extraordinary character, and not as readily available as the remedies obtaining to a judgment that is not yet final. o In this case, Barco essentially asks the SC to annul the judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, that is, jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter, and jurisdiction over the parties. First, Barco asserts that RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person because there failure to implead her as a part to the petition. SC thinks otherwise. The petition for correction is AN ACTION IN REM. Thats why the decision binds not only the parties thereto but the WHOLE WORLD. Sec. 4, Rule 108 provides that notice of publication is sufficient compliance to confer jurisdiction over Nadinas cause of action. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. As such, Barco, regardless of whether or not she was impleaded as a party, is bound to the decision of the RTC since the action is an in rem action.

Second, Barco questions the RTC judgment granting the correction since in correction of entries, the jurisdiction of the court is limited to innocuous and clerical errors. What is being changed in the petition are substantial errors, that is, change in the civil status of June. SC disagrees. In a 1986 ruling, Rep. v. Valencia, 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 by the error availing themselves of the appropriate adversarial proceeding. Also, Republic Act No. 9048, enacted in 2001, has effectively changed the nature of a proceeding under Rule 108. Under this new law, "clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname" may now be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal registrar or consul general, without need of any judicial order. The obvious effect is to remove from the ambit of Rule 108 the correction or changing of such errors in entries of 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.

Third, Barco argues that the petition for correction filed by Nadia is in fact a petition for change of name which can only be filed by the person whose name is sought to be changed, in this case, June. Therefore, for Barco, Nadina had no capacity to file such petition. SC disagrees and points out that even if the petition is in fact one for a change of name, it does not divest of the RTC of its jurisdiction over the case. Such assertion does not allude to the courts jurisdiction. Assuming arguendo that Nadinas petition for correction had prescribed and/or that the action seeking the change of name can only be filed by the party whose name is sought to be changed, this does not alter the reality that under the law the Makati RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition for correction. The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the applicable law at the time, clearly conferred on the Makati RTC exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. In complementation of grant of jurisdiction, Section 1 of Rule 108 provides that the verified petition to the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto should be filed with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. Prescription and lack of capacity to bring action cannot be ignored by a court of law in properly resolving an action, to the extent that a finding that any of these grounds exist will be sufficient to cause the dismissal of the action. Yet, the existence of these grounds does not oust the court from its power to decide the case. Jurisdiction cannot be acquired through, waived, enlarged or diminished by any act or omission of the parties. Contrariwise, lack of capacity to sue and prescriptions as grounds for dismissal of an action may generally be rendered unavailing, if not raised within the proper period. It thus follows that assuming that the petition for correction had prescribed, or that Nadina lacked the capacity to file the action which led to the change of her daughters name, the fact that the RTC granted the Order despite the existence of these two grounds only characterizes the decision as erroneous. An erroneous judgment is one though rendered according to the course and practice of the court is contrary to law. It is not a void judgment.

DECISION: petition dismissed for lack of merit.