Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82696:56513&catid=1580&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:52:20+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 189538, February 10, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR, Respondent.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR, Respondent.
Assailed in this Petition for Review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Regional Trial Court1 (RTC) Decision2 dated May 5, 2009 and Order3 dated August 25, 2009 in SP. Proc. No. 16519–CEB. The assailed Decision granted respondent Merlinda L. Olaybar’s petition for cancellation of entries in the latter’s marriage contract; while the assailed Order denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
Respondent requested from the National Statistics Office (NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage (CENOMAR) as one of the requirements for her marriage with her boyfriend of five years. Upon receipt thereof, she discovered that she was already married to a certain Ye Son Sune, a Korean National, on June 24, 2002, at the Office of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Palace of Justice. She denied having contracted said marriage and claimed that she did not know the alleged husband; she did not appear before the solemnizing officer; and, that the signature appearing in the marriage certificate is not hers.4 She, thus, filed a Petition for Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage Contract, especially the entries in the wife portion thereof.5 Respondent impleaded the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City, as well as her alleged husband, as parties to the case.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, the petition is granted in favor of the petitioner, Merlinda L. Olaybar. The Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City is directed to cancel all the entries in the WIFE portion of the alleged marriage contract of the petitioner and respondent Ye Son Sune.
WHEREFORE, the court hereby denies the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Republic of the Philippines. Furnish copies of this order to the Office of the Solicitor General, the petitioner’s counsel, and all concerned government agencies.
RULE 108 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT APPLIES ONLY WHEN THERE ARE ERRORS IN THE ENTRIES SOUGHT TO BE CANCELLED OR CORRECTED.
At the outset, it is necessary to stress that a direct recourse to this Court from the decisions and final orders of the RTC may be taken where only questions of law are raised or involved. There is a question of law when the doubt arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, which does not call for the examination of the probative value of the evidence of the parties.18 Here, the issue raised by petitioner is whether or not the cancellation of entries in the marriage contract which, in effect, nullifies the marriage may be undertaken in a Rule 108 proceeding. Verily, petitioner raised a pure question of law.
SEC. 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.
SEC. 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) marriages; (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.
SEC. 3. Parties. – When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.
SEC. 4. Notice and Publication. – Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
SEC. 5. Opposition. – The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.
SEC. 6. Expediting proceedings. – The court in which the proceedings is brought may make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings.
SEC. 7. Order. – After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, a certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar concerned who shall annotate the same in his record.
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.
In filing the petition for correction of entry under Rule 108, respondent made the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City, as well as her alleged husband Ye Son Sune, as parties–respondents. It is likewise undisputed that the procedural requirements set forth in Rule 108 were complied with. The Office of the Solicitor General was likewise notified of the petition which in turn authorized the Office of the City Prosecutor to participate in the proceedings. More importantly, trial was conducted where respondent herself, the stenographer of the court where the alleged marriage was conducted, as well as a document examiner, testified. Several documents were also considered as evidence. With the testimonies and other evidence presented, the trial court found that the signature appearing in the subject marriage certificate was different from respondent’s signature appearing in some of her government issued identification cards.23 The court thus made a categorical conclusion that respondent’s signature in the marriage certificate was not hers and, therefore, was forged. Clearly, it was established that, as she claimed in her petition, no such marriage was celebrated.
Aside from the certificate of marriage, no such evidence was presented to show the existence of marriage. Rather, respondent showed by overwhelming evidence that no marriage was entered into and that she was not even aware of such existence. The testimonial and documentary evidence clearly established that the only “evidence” of marriage which is the marriage certificate was a forgery. While we maintain that Rule 108 cannot be availed of to determine the validity of marriage, we cannot nullify the proceedings before the trial court where all the parties had been given the opportunity to contest the allegations of respondent; the procedures were followed, and all the evidence of the parties had already been admitted and examined. Respondent indeed sought, not the nullification of marriage as there was no marriage to speak of, but the correction of the record of such marriage to reflect the truth as set forth by the evidence. Otherwise stated, in allowing the correction of the subject certificate of marriage by cancelling the wife portion thereof, the trial court did not, in any way, declare the marriage void as there was no marriage to speak of.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Regional Trial Court Decision dated May 5, 2009 and Order dated August 25, 2009 in SP. Proc. No. 16519–CEB, are AFFIRMED.
Velasco, Jr., J., (Chairperson), Abad, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
1 Branch 6, Cebu City.
2 Penned by Presiding Judge Ester M. Veloso; rollo, pp. 32–34.
18Republic v. Sagun, G.R. No. 187567, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 321, 329.
19 225 Phil. 408 (1986).
20 Barco v. Court of Appeals, 465 Phil. 39, 58 (2004).
21Republic of the Philippines v. Lim, 464 Phil. 151, 157 (2004); Eleosida v. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, 431 Phil. 612, 619 (2002).
22Lee v. Court of Appeals, 419 Phil. 392, 410 (2001).
24 G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013.
25] Minoru Fujiki v. Maria Paz Galela Marinay, Shinichi Maekara, Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, and the Administrator and Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Office, G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.