Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Republic vs. Uy

    Uploaded by

    Grace
    The case involved a petition to correct an entry in a birth certificate. The petitioner claimed the certificate incorrectly listed her name as "Anita Sy" when her actual name is "Norma S. Lugsanay." While the lower courts approved the correction, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that all indispensable parties, such as the Local Civil Registrar, were not included. The Court ruled that simply publishing a notice is not enough to cure the lack of indispensable parties, as correcting substantial entries in civil registries like citizenship requires an adversarial proceeding with proper notification to all affected parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic vs. Uy

    Uploaded by

    Grace
    24 views2 pages
    The case involved a petition to correct an entry in a birth certificate. The petitioner claimed the certificate incorrectly listed her name as "Anita Sy" when her actual name is "Norma S. Lugsanay." While the lower courts approved the correction, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that all indispensable parties, such as the Local Civil Registrar, were not included. The Court ruled that simply publishing a notice is not enough to cure the lack of indispensable parties, as correcting substantial entries in civil registries like citizenship requires an adversarial proceeding with proper notification to all affected parties.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a petition to correct an entry in a birth certificate. The petitioner claimed the certificate incorrectly listed her name as "Anita Sy" when her actual name is "Norma S. Lugsanay." While the lower courts approved the correction, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that all indispensable parties, such as the Local Civil Registrar, were not included. The Court ruled that simply publishing a notice is not enough to cure the lack of indispensable parties, as correcting substantial entries in civil registries like citizenship requires an adversarial proceeding with proper notification to all affected parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views2 pages

    Republic vs. Uy

    Uploaded by

    Grace
    The case involved a petition to correct an entry in a birth certificate. The petitioner claimed the certificate incorrectly listed her name as "Anita Sy" when her actual name is "Norma S. Lugsanay." While the lower courts approved the correction, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that all indispensable parties, such as the Local Civil Registrar, were not included. The Court ruled that simply publishing a notice is not enough to cure the lack of indispensable parties, as correcting substantial entries in civil registries like citizenship requires an adversarial proceeding with proper notification to all affected parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1. Republic vs.

    Uy

    Facts:

    On March 8, 2004, respondent filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in her


    Certificate of Live Birth. Impleaded as respondent is the Local Civil Registrar of
    Gingoog City. She alleged that she was born on February 8, 1952 and is the
    illegitimate daughter of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay Her Certificate of Live Birth
    shows that her full name is “Anita Sy” when in fact she is allegedly known to her
    family and friends as “Norma S. Lugsanay.” She further claimed that her school
    records, Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Board of Medicine
    Certificate, and passport bear the name “Norma S. Lugsanay.” She also alleged
    that she is an illegitimate child considering that her parents were never married,
    so she had to follow the surname of her mother. She also contended that she is
    a Filipino citizen and not Chinese, and all her siblings bear the surname
    Lugsanay and are all Filipinos. cralaw virtualaw library

    On February 18, 2011, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Order. The CA held that
    respondent’s failure to implead other indispensable parties was cured upon the
    publication of the Order setting the case for hearing in a newspaper of general
    circulation for three (3) consecutive weeks and by serving a copy of the notice to the
    Local Civil Registrar, the OSG and the City Prosecutor’s Office.

    Issue:
    Whether or not failure to implead the indispensable parties is cured through publication.
    Ruling: No. 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 ofthe Rules of Court is mandated.44 If the entries in the civil
    register could be corrected or changed through mere summary proceedings and not
    through appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are
    notified or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief would be set open, the
    consequence of which might be detrimental and far reaching.
    It has been settled in a number of cases starting with Republic v. Valencia20 that even
    substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established
    provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate
    adversary proceeding.21 The pronouncement of the Court in that case is illuminating:

    It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the correction of
    clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or
    citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as controverted, affirmative relief
    cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in nature. However, it is also true that a
    right in law may be enforced and a wrong may be remedied as long as the appropriate
    remedy is used. This Court adheres to the principle that even substantial errors in a civil
    registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved
    by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. 
    What is meant by “appropriate adversary proceeding?” Black’s Law Dictionary defines
    “adversary proceeding” as follows:

    One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte application,


    one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party, and
    afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. Excludes an adoption proceeding.

    You might also like