Olaybar.docx

RP v. Olaybar

The other party (P: RP) filed a Recon on grounds that:

This case involves Melinda Olaybar who requested from the NSO a CENOMAR as one of the reqs for her marriage with her boyfriend of 5 yrs. Upon receipt she discovered that she was already married to a Korean National named Ye Son Sune on June 24, 2002 at the office of MTCC.

(1) there was no clerical spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the marriage contract for it to fall within the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court; and (2) granting the cancellation of all the entries in the wife portion of the alleged marriage contract is, in effect, declaring the marriage void ab initio

Contention of Olaybar:

RTC denied petitioner’s motion

1. She denied the said marriage and claimed that she did not know him. (but she revealed that she recognized the named witnesses to the marriage as she had met them while she was working as a receptionist in Tadels Pension House. )

RTC held that it had jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases for correction of entries even on substantial errors under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court being the appropriate adversary proceeding required. Considering that respondent’s identity was used by an unknown person to contract marriage with a Korean national, it would not be feasible for respondent to institute an action for declaration of nullity of marriage since it is not one of the void marriages under Articles 35 and 36 of the Family Code

2. she did not appear before the solemnizing officer; and, 3.that the signature appearing in the marriage certificate is not hers. 4. that she could not have appeared before Judge Mamerto Califlores, the supposed solemnizing officer, at the time the marriage was allegedly celebrated, because she was then in Makati working as a medical distributor in Hansao Pharma. 5. She believed that her name was used by a certain Johnny Singh, who owned a travel agency, whom she gave her personal circumstances in order for her to obtain a passport. She, thus, filed a Petition for Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage Contract, especially the entries in the wife portion She also impleaded the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City, as well as her alleged husband, as parties to the case.
 During trial, she also presented as witness a certain Eufrocina Natinga, an employee of MTCC, Branch 1, who confirmed that the marriage of Ye Son Sune was indeed celebrated in their office, but claimed that the alleged wife who appeared was definitely not respondent.7 Lastly, a document examiner testified that the signature appearing in the marriage contract was forged.8 RTC: granted the petition in favor of Olaybar and the Civ. Reg. of Cebu was directed to cancel all the entries in the wife portion of the marriage contract. The court, because of the forged signature of Olaybar found the basis for rectifying the mistake made.

ISSUES: Whether the cancellation of entries in the marriage contract which, in effect, nullifies the marriage may be undertaken in a Rule 108 proceeding. Held: Yes. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. The proceedings may either be summary or adversary. If the correction is clerical, then the procedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification affects the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the procedure to be adopted is adversary. An appropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one where the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the opposite party’s case, and where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered The procedure laid down in Rule 108 is not a summary proceeding per se. It requires publication of the petition; it mandates the inclusion as parties of all persons who may claim interest which would be affected by the cancellation or correction; it also requires the civil registrar and any person in interest to file their opposition, if any; and it states that although the court may make orders expediting the proceedings, it is after hearing that the court shall either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting the same. Thus, as long as the procedural requirements in Rule 108 are followed, it is the appropriate adversary proceeding to effect substantial corrections and changes in entries of the civil register

In this case, the entries made in the wife portion of the certificate of marriage are admittedly the personal circumstances of respondent. The latter, however, claims that her signature was forged and she was not the one who contracted marriage with the purported husband. In other words, she claims that no such marriage was entered into or if there was, she was not the one who entered into such contract. It must be recalled that when respondent tried to obtain a CENOMAR from the NSO, it appeared that she was married to a certain Ye Son Sune. She then sought the cancellation of entries in the wife portion of the marriage certificate. 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 of 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. Aside from the certificate of marriage, no such evidence was presented to show the existence of marriage.1Rather, respondent showed by overwhelming evidence that no marriage was entered into and that she was not even aware of such existence. Mangila v. Judge Pangilinan Anita Mangila, petitioner, was charged with seven of syndicated estafa. The complaint against her arose from recruiting and promising employment to private complainants as overseas contract workers in Toronto, Canada without lawful authority from POEA. On the following day, June 17, 2003, Judge Heriberto M. Pangilinan, Presiding Judge of the MTCC, conducted a preliminary investigation on the complaints. After examining Miguel Aaron Palayon, one of the complainants, Judge Pangilinan issued a warrant for the arrest of Mangila and her cohorts without bail.2

On the next day, the entire records of the cases, including the warrant of arrest, were transmitted to the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa City for further proceedings and appropriate action in accordance with the prevailing rules.3 As a consequence, Mangila was arrested on June 18, 2003 and detained at the headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). *** Claiming that Judge Pangilinan did not have the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation; that the preliminary investigation he conducted was not yet completed when he issued the warrant of arrest; and that the issuance of the warrant of arrest was without sufficient justification or without a prior finding of probable cause, Mangila filed in the Court of Appeals (CA)a petition for habeas corpus to obtain her release from detention. Her petition averred that the remedy of habeas corpus was available to her because she could no longer file a motion to quash or a motion to recall the warrant of arrest considering that Judge Pangilinan had already forwarded the entire records of the case to the City Prosecutor who had no authority to lift or recall the warrant he CA denied the petition for habeas corpus for its lack of merit, explaining: As a general rule, a writ of habeas corpus will not be granted where relief may be had or could have been procured by resort to another general remedy. As pointed out in Luna vs. Plaza, if petitioner is detained by virtue of a warrant of arrest, which is allegedly invalid, the remedy available to her is not a petition for habeas corpus but a petition to quash the warrant of arrest or a petition for a reinvestigation of the case by the Municipal Judge or by the Provincial Fiscal. Section 5, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Municipal Judge who conducted the preliminary investigation shall transmit his resolution, together with the record of the case, including the warrant of arrest, to the Provincial Prosecutor, who shall review the same and order the release of an accused who is detained if no probable cause is found against him. Thus, the proper remedy available to petitioner is for her to file with the Provincial Prosecutor a motion to be released from detention on the grounds alleged in the instant petition. Issue: Did the CA err in ruling that habeas corpus was not the proper remedy to obtain the release of Mangila from detention? Held: The answer is in the negative. Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor intended as substitute for the trial court’s function. It cannot take the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of error. The writ cannot be used to investigate and consider questions of error that might be raised relating to procedure or on the merits. The inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is addressed

to the question of whether the proceedings and the assailed order are, for any reason, null and void. Moreover, habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of trial. The orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies exhausted before resorting to the writ where exceptional circumstances are extant. Hence, it cannot be issued where what is being questioned is the propriety of the issuance of the warrant of arrest and other remedies to inquire into such issue is no longer available. The function of habeas corpus, where the party who has appealed to its aid is in custody under process, does not extend beyond an inquiry into the jurisdiction of the court by which it was issued and the validity of the process upon its face. It is not a writ of error. With Mangila’s arrest and ensuing detention being by virtue of the order lawfully issued by Judge Pangilinan, the writ of habeas corpus was not an appropriate remedy to relieve her from the restraint on her liberty. This is because the restraint, being lawful and pursuant to a court process, could not be inquired into through habeas corpus. Almojuela

This case involves Felipe C. Almojuela (petitioner), who for 60 yrs, has been using the surname "Almojuela." However, when he requested for a copy of his birth certificate from the National Statistics Office (NSO), he was surprised to discover that he was registered as "Felipe Condeno," instead of "Felipe Almojuela." Thus, he filed a Petition for Correction of Entry5 in his NSO birth certificate before the RTC, Petitioner alleged that he was born on February 25, 1950 in Pandan, Catanduanes and is the acknowledged natural child of Jorge V. Almojuela (Jorge), fonner governor of the said province, and Francisca B. Condeno (Francisca), both deceased. He averred that while his parents did not marry each other, he has been known to his family and friends as "Felipe Almojuela" and has been using the said surname in all of his official and legal documents, including his school records from elementary to college, certificate of Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) membership, government service records, appointment as Provincial General Services Officer, report of rating in the First Grade Entrance Examination of the Civil Service Commission, Philippine Passport, Marriage Contract, and Certificate of Compensation Payment/Tax Withheld. In support of his petition, he also presented a copy of his birth certificate issued by the Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Pandan, Catanduanes showing that "Felipe Almojuela" appears as his registered full name.

RTC initially dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner's recourse to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court was improper, as the petition did not involve mere correction of clerical errors but a matter of filiation which should, thus, be filed in accordance with Rule 103 of the same Rules. Moreover, it found that a similar petition docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 1229 had already been ruled upon and dismissed by the court. maintaining that the issue of filiation is immaterial since he was only seeking a correction of entry by including the surname "Almojuela" to "Felipe Condeno," his first and middle names appearing on his birth certificate with the NSO. He likewise insisted that the name "Jorge V. Almojuela" was clearly indicated thereon as the name of his father. Finding merit in petitioner's arguments, the RTC, in an Order11 dated February 9, 2011, reconsidered its earlier disposition and allowed petitioner to present his evidence. During the proceedings, it was discovered that petitioner's name as registered in the Book of Births in the custody of the Municipal Civil Registar of Pandan, Catanduanes is "Felipe Condeno" and not "Felipe C. Almojuela," contrary to petitioner's allegation. The RTC Ruling 2011, the R TC granted the petition and accordingly, directed the Municipal Civil Registrar .of Pandan, Catanduanes to cause the correction of entry of the facts of petitioner's birth by changing his surname from "Condeno" to "Almojuela" and to furnish the Civil Registrar General with a copy of the corrected birth certificate R TC found that the change in petitioner's surname would cause no prejudice to the Almojuela family nor would they be the object of future mischief. Instead, petitioner has shown that he was accepted and acknowledged by his half-siblings. Moreover, allowing petitioner to retain the surname that he has been using for over sixty (60) years, i.e., "Almojuela," would avoid confusion in his personal undertakings, as well as in the community. the R TC ordered that the same be first corrected before the correction of entry in the records of the NSO could be had. The CA Ruling