133 Babiera v. Catotal (Villarama)

Entries subject to cancellation or
correction under Rule 108

SUMMARY: Presentacion Catotal filed a petition for the cancellation of the entry of birth of Teofista Babiera, alleging that Teofista
of
was actually the child of their housemaid Flora Guinto, but Flora caused a registration^fictitious birth (making it appear that
Teofista was the child of Presentacions parents). RTC and CA declared the birth certificate null and void ab initio. SC affirms.
DOCTRINE : A birth certificate may be ordered cancelled upon adequate proof that it is fictitious. Thus, void is a certificate which
shows that the mother was already 54 years old at the time of the child's birth and which was signed neither by the civil
registrar nor by the supposed mother. Because her inheritance rights are adversely affected, the legitimate child of such
mother is a proper party in the proceedings for the cancellation of the said certificate.
NATURE : Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, seeking reversal of the CA decision (which affirmed RTC Lanao del Norte)
BABIERA v. CATOTAL 15 Jun. 2000 | G.R. No. 138493 | Panganiban, J.
TOPIC :
Presentacion B. Catotal filed a petition for the cancellation of the civil registry entry of birth of Teofista Babiera before RTC Lanao
del Norte. She asserted that she is the only surviving child of the late Sps. Eugenio and Hermogena Babiera (SPS. BABIERA).
September 20, 1996 Presentacion, then 15 years old, witnessed their housemaid (Flora Guinto) give birth to a
baby (Teofista) which was delivered by 'hilot' in the house of Sps. Babiera.
Without the knowledge of said spouses, the housemaid Flora caused the registration/recording of the facts of
birth of her child, by simulating that Teofista was the child of the spouses Eugenio, then 65 years old and
Hermogena, then 54 years old, and made Hermogena Babiera appear as the mother by forging her signature.
Teofista filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that 'the petition states no cause of action, it being an attack on the legitimacy
of the respondent as the child of the Sps. Babiera; that plaintiff has no legal capacity to file the instant petition pursuant to
Article 171 of the Family Code; and finally that the instant petition is barred by prescription in accordance with Article 170 .'
RTC denied the MTD. Teofista filed her answer.
RTC declared Teofistas birth certificate null and void ab initio, and ordered the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of Iligan City to cancel
the registration of live birth. CA affirmed. The birth certificate was not signed by the LCR, and Hermogenas signature looked
different. Evidence also shows that Hermogena is not Teofistas mother (see SCs discussion below).
(1) W/N Presentacion has standing to sue YES.

Respondent has the requisite standing to initiate the present action. Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, provides that a real
party in interest is one "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit." The interest of respondent in the civil status of petitioner stems from an action for partition which the latter filed
against the former. The case concerned the properties inherited by respondent from her parents.
Moreover, Art. 171 of the Family Code is not applicable to the present case. A close reading of this provision shows that it
applies to instances in which the father impugns the legitimacy of his wife's child. The provision, however, presupposes that
the child was the undisputed offspring of the mother. The present case alleges and shows that Hermogena did not give birth
to petitioner. In other words, the prayer herein is not to declare that petitioner is an illegitimate child of Hermogena, but to
establish that the former is not the latter's child at all. Verily, the present action does not impugn petitioner's filiation to
Spouses Eugenio and Hermogena Babiera, because there is no blood relation to impugn in the first place.
(2) W/N the action to contest Teofistas status has prescribed NO.
The present action involves the cancellation of petitioner's Birth Certificate; it does not impugn her legitimacy. Thus, the
prescriptive period set forth in Article 170 of the Family Code does not apply. Verily, the action to nullify the Birth Certificate
does not prescribe, because it was allegedly void ab initio.
(3) W/N Teofistas birth certificate enjoys a presumption of regularity YES, but it has been negated.
While it is true that an official document such as Teofistas Birth Certificate enjoys the presumption of regularity, the specific
facts attendant in the case at bar, as well as the totality of the evidence presented during trial, sufficiently negate such
presumption.
o First, there were already irregularities regarding the Birth Certificate itself. It was not signed by the local civil registrar.[
More important, the CA observed that the mother's signature therein was different from her signatures in other
documents presented during the trial.
o Second, the circumstances surrounding the birth of petitioner show that Hermogena is not the former's real mother.
For one, there is no evidence of Hermogena's pregnancy, such as medical records and doctor's prescriptions, other
than the Birth Certificate itself. In fact, no witness was presented to attest to the pregnancy of Hermogena during that
time. Moreover, at the time of her supposed birth, Hermogena was already 54 years old. Even if it were possible for
her to have given birth at such a late age, it was highly suspicious that she did so in her own home, when her
advanced age necessitated proper medical care normally available only in a hospital.
o The most significant piece of evidence, however, is the deposition of Hermogena Babiera which states that she did
not give birth to petitioner, and that the latter was not hers nor her husbands.
Bianca Danica Santiago Villarama
Page 1 of 1
Spec Pro Case # 133

133 Babiera v. Catotal (Villarama)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

133 Babiera v. Catotal (Villarama)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

133 Babiera v. Catotal (Villarama)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Entries subject to cancellation or

correction under Rule 108

BABIERA v. CATOTAL 15 Jun. 2000 | G.R. No. 138493 | Panganiban, J.

(1) W/N Presentacion has standing to sue YES.

Bianca Danica Santiago Villarama

Spec Pro Case # 133

You might also like