SpecPro - Ceruila v. Delantar

Ceruila v.
Delantar
Petitioners-spouses Platon Ceruila and Librada D. Ceruila (Ceruilas) filed an

action with the RTC for the annulment and cancellation of the birth certificate
of Maria Rosilyn Telin Delantar, the child-victim in the rape case involving
Romeo Jaloslos.
Sometime in 1996, Rosilyn complained against her father, Simplicio Delantar
(Simplicio) for child abuse, particularly prostitution. Simplicio was
incarcerated at the Pasay City Jail which prompted the filing of a petition for
involuntary commitment of Rosilyn in favor of DSWD as the whereabouts of
the mother, Librada Ceruila, was unknown.
The Ceruilas filed a petition before the RTC of Manila, entitled IN THE MATTER
OF CANCELLATION AND ANNULMENT OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF
MARIA ROSILYN TELIN DELANTAR, praying that the birth certificate of Rosilyn
be canceled and declared null and void for the reasons that said birth
certificate was made an INSTRUMENT OF THE CRIME OF SIMULATION
of birth and therefore invalid and spurious:
xxx
c. The name of Simplicio Delantar as the biological father, considering that,
as already mentioned, he is merely the foster father and co-guardian in fact
of Maria Rosilyn and the name of the natural father in (sic) unknown;
d. The date of marriage of the supposed parents, since the parents reflected
in said certificate were (sic) actually full blood brother and sister and
therefore marriage between the two is virtually impossible;
e. The status of Maria Rosilyn as a legitimate child as the same (sic) is

actually not legitimate;
Summons was sent to the Civil Register of Manila. [8] However, no

representative appeared during the scheduled hearing. [9]
The RTC rendered its decision granting the petition of the Ceruilas. Meaning,
the Birth Certificate of Rosilyn was cancelled.
Rosilyn, represented by her legal guardian, the DSWD, filed, with the CA, a
petition for the annulment of judgment in the petition for cancellation of entry
of her birth certificate.[13] She claimed that she and her guardian were not
notified of the petition and the subsequent judgment and learned about the
same only from the news.
CA reversed RTC. It ruled that since Rosilyn, an indispensable party, was not
served with summons, there was a violation of her right to due process.
Hence, RTCs decision is flawed.
Issues w/ Ruling:
1. Is the petition for annulment and cancellation of the birth certificate of

Rosilyn an ordinary civil action or a special proceeding?
Considering that the petition, based on its allegations, does not question the
fact of birth of Rosilyn, all matters assailing the truthfulness of any entry in the birth
certificate properly, including the date of birth, fall under Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court which governs cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry. Thus,
the petition filed by the Ceruilas, alleging material entries in the certificate as
having been falsified, is properly considered as a special proceeding pursuant to
Section 3(c), Rule 1 and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
2. Did the Ceruilas comply with the requirements of Rule 108? No.
Sec. 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, expressly states that:
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.
Indeed, not only the civil registrar BUT ALSO ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE OR
CLAIM ANY INTEREST which would be affected by a proceeding concerning the
cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register must be made parties
thereto.[35] As enunciated in Republic vs. Benemerito,[36]unless all possible
indispensable parties were duly notified of the proceedings, the same shall be
considered as falling much too short of the requirements of the rules. [37]
Here, it is clear that no party could be more interested in the cancellation of
Rosilyns birth certificate than Rosilyn herself.
Her filiation, legitimacy,
and date of birth are at stake.

Petitioners claim that even though Rosilyn was never made a party to the
proceeding, it is enough that her name was included in the caption of the petition.
Such reasoning is without merit.
As we pronounced in Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic[38] where the mother sought
changes in the entries of her two childrens birth certificates:
since only the Office of the Solicitor General was notified through the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal, representing the Republic of the Philippines as the only respondent,
the proceedings taken, which is summary in nature, is short of what is required in
cases where substantial alterations are sought. Aside from the Office of the
Solicitor General, all other indispensable parties should have been made
respondents. They include not only the declared father of the child but the
child as well, together with the paternal grandparents, if any, as their
hereditary rights would be adversely affected thereby. All other persons who
may be affected by the change should be notified or represented
In the present case, only the Civil Registrar of Manila was served summons, who,
however, did not participate in the proceedings. This alone is clearly not sufficient to
comply with the requirements laid down by the rules.
Petitioners further claim that the lack of summons on Rosilyn was cured by the
publication of the order of the trial court setting the case for hearing for three
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. WRONG! Summons must
still be served, not for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction, but to
comply with the requirements of fair play and due process. This is but proper, to
afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect her interest if she so
chooses.
Indeed, there were instances when we ruled that even though an interested party
was not impleaded in the petition, such defect was cured by compliance with Sec. 4,
Rule 108 on publication. In said cases, however, earnest efforts were made by the
petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested parties.[41]
Such is not the case at bar. Rosilyn was never made a party at all to the
proceedings seeking the cancellation of her birth certificate. Neither did petitioners
make any effort to summon the Solicitor General.
Scaaary ayu ni nga part:

It does not take much to deduce the real motive of petitioners in seeking the
cancellation of Rosilyns birth certificate and in not making her, her guardian, the
DSWD, and the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, parties to
the petition. Rosilyn was involved in the rape case against Romeo Jalosjos, where
her father, as appearing in the birth certificate, was said to have pimped her into
prostitution. In the criminal case, the defense contended that the birth certificate of
Rosilyn should not have been considered by the trial court to prove Rosilyns age and
thus find basis for statutory rape, as said birth certificate has been cancelled by the
RTC of Manila, Branch 38, in the special proceeding antecedent to this petition.
Their efforts in this regard, however, were thwarted when the CA overturned Branch
38s decision, and the Court, in G.R. Nos. 132875-76 [42] considered other evidence as
proof of Rosilyns age at the time of the commission of the crime.

SpecPro - Ceruila v. Delantar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SpecPro - Ceruila v. Delantar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SpecPro - Ceruila v. Delantar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ceruila v.

Petitioners-spouses Platon Ceruila and Librada D. Ceruila (Ceruilas) filed an

e. The status of Maria Rosilyn as a legitimate child as the same (sic) is

Summons was sent to the Civil Register of Manila. [8] However, no

1. Is the petition for annulment and cancellation of the birth certificate of

Her filiation, legitimacy,

and date of birth are at stake.

Scaaary ayu ni nga part:

You might also like