The case involves Harmon and Grace. They were born in the Philippines on March 23, 1974 and May 19, 1975 respectively. In their birth certificates, it was stated that their parents were both Chinese citizens. On February 15, 1977, when Harmon and Grace were still minors, their father, Mr. Tan became a Philippine Citizen under P.D. 1055 and Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 270.
On August 27, 1998, Harmon and Grace filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for correction of entries in their birth certificates under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. At that time both of them were already of legal age and had already finished college and earned their respective decrees in architecture and accountancy in Philippine schools. They asked the RTC to correct and change the entries in their respective birth certificates as to the citizenship of their father, Mr. Tan, from "Chinese" to "Filipino". They claimed that under the Naturalization Law particularly Section 15 of Commonwealth Act (CA) 473 as amended by CA 535, minor children of persons naturalized under said law shall be considered citizens thereof. So pursuant to Article 407 of the Civil Code (CC) such act or event affecting and concerning their civil status shall be recorded in the Civil Register.
The RTC however dismissed their petition outright. According to the RTC, LOI 270 under which their father was naturalized does not have a provision similar to CA 473 with respect to the minor children of the applicant. It clearly refers to qualified individuals only and deals with the requirements and procedure for naturalization by presidential decree while CA 473 deals with naturalization by judicial decree. Furthermore, the correction sought and allowed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court must be one that reflects a fact existing before or at the time of birth. In their case, the naturalization of their father took place when they were already three and two years old. Was the RTC correct?
No. LOI 270 and CA 473 should be construed together to attain the purpose of an expressed national policy. Prior statutes relating to the same subject matter are to be compared with the new provisions; and if possible by reasonable construction, both are to be construed that effect is given to every provision of each. Statutes in pari materia (on the same subject matter), although in apparent conflict, are so far as reasonably possible construed to be in harmony with each other. Absent any express repeal of Section 15, CA 473 in LOI 270, the said provision should be read into the latter law as an integral part thereof, not being inconsistent with its purpose. Thus Section 15 of CA 473 which extends the grant of Philippine citizenship to the minor children of those naturalized there under, should be similarly applied to the minor children of persons naturalized under LOI 270 like Harmon and Grace in this case.
Harmon’s and Grace’s recourse to Rule 108 as amended is appropriate. Said rule was adopted to provide for a specific procedure to implement Article 412 of the CC which requires a judicial order for any change or correction of any entry in the civil register including not only status but nationality. The acts or events to be recorded in the civil register include even those that occur after birth. However in such cases, instead of correcting or changing the entries in the certificate of birth, the decision of the court ordering the change or correction shall be annotated in the birth certificates and shall form part of the civil register in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar.
To correct means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error there from". To change means "to replace something with another of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute". Such changes or corrections include not only those clerical in nature but also substantial errors. If the entries in the civil register sought to be corrected are clerical or innocuous, the proceedings are summary. But if the entries sought to be corrected are substantial i.e., the status and nationality of Harmon and Grace or the citizenship of their parents, the proceedings are adversarial in nature. In such a proceeding the parties to be impleaded as respective defendants are (a) the local civil registrar and (b) all persons who have claims or any interest which would be affected thereby.
So the RTC should not have dismissed the petition of Harmon and Grace. Instead it should issue an order fixing the time and place for hearing of the same and send reasonable notice thereof to the persons named in the petition as well as cause the order to be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province (section 4, Rule 108). This is the ruling in Co vs. Civil Registrar of Manila 423, SCRA 420. G.R.138496, Feb. 23, 2004)