REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. SOFRONIO SAYO, Presiding Judge of the CFI of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch I, and RAMON TAN BIANA JR., respondents.

 

 

Ma.Riffy C Balingit

JD-II

 

 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SAYO

G.R.  NO. 61565, AUGUST 20, 1990

 

FACTS:

 

Ramon sought in a petition filed in the then Court of First Instance for corrections of entries in the Civil Registry relating to his citizenship and of his legitimate parents. The Court issued a notice of hearing for a hearing on 15 April 1982 after the copies were furnished to the office of the Provincial Fiscal, the office of the Solicitor General, and the Local Civil Registrar. The notice of hearing was also posted on the bulletin board and was published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks.

 

          Decision was rendered by the court ordering the Local civil Registry to make some corrections concerning the petition of the private respondent concerning citizenship. But when the Office of the Solicitor General finally appeared after failing to appear for few hearings, it contended that the trial court should not have ordered the correction of the relevant entries in the Local Civil Registry since they involved substantial matters which should not have been decided in "a merely summary proceeding" but rather in "an appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented".

 

ISSUE:

 

WON the Court of First Instance erred in rendering a decision granting the petition of the private respondent on corrections of entry in the Local Civil registry.

 

 

RULING:

 

No. The court was correct in ordering the Local Civil Registry on corrections of entry of the citizenship of the private respondent. Notwithstanding the contention of the Office of the Solicitor General that the changes in the Local Civil Registry requested by the petitioner was “significant” involving citizenship of the petitioner and such substantial matters should be decided in an appropriate adversary proceeding and not under a summary proceeding, the court was reasonable in rendering the decision. The decision was rendered under appropriate adversary proceedings since the procedures followed by the court satisfy it to be such as furnishing a copy of the petition to the provincial fiscal, local civil registrar, office of the solicitor general. The notice of hearing was also posted on the bulletin board and was published in a newspaper in general circulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. The failure of appearance and the failure to oppose such a petition doesn’t change the adversarial character of the proceedings and it was neither the fault of the Provincial Fiscal nor the private respondent.